Difference between revisions of "Feb 14th, Templates Minutes"
MulrooneyG (talk | contribs) |
MulrooneyG (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Regarding ballot line number 2, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive with Mod, with the following rationale: "The problem here is that "interoperability contract" was a badly chosen term. As agreed in committee, I have changed it to "interoperability Paradigm" and beefed up the clarification to clarify why paradigms matter in the template specification" MS seconded. 3/0/0 | Regarding ballot line number 2, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive with Mod, with the following rationale: "The problem here is that "interoperability contract" was a badly chosen term. As agreed in committee, I have changed it to "interoperability Paradigm" and beefed up the clarification to clarify why paradigms matter in the template specification" MS seconded. 3/0/0 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Regarding ballot line number 3, GG motioned that the issue raised is not related, as it was based on a misunderstanding of the concept being proposed, thus, the section will be re-written to be more clear. MS seconded. | ||
Revision as of 21:42, 14 February 2007
GG distributed an updated version of the templates spec
GG motioned that we accept the changes to section 1.4 as written in response to various comments. MS seconded. 3/0/0
Regarding ballot line number 2, GG motioned that we accept as Persuasive with Mod, with the following rationale: "The problem here is that "interoperability contract" was a badly chosen term. As agreed in committee, I have changed it to "interoperability Paradigm" and beefed up the clarification to clarify why paradigms matter in the template specification" MS seconded. 3/0/0
Regarding ballot line number 3, GG motioned that the issue raised is not related, as it was based on a misunderstanding of the concept being proposed, thus, the section will be re-written to be more clear. MS seconded.
