Does Don formally oppose posting the report?

[Mike Ossipoff]

Don, you've waited till the last minute to express your opposition to
the posting of that report. Do you formally oppose it? 

Steve, if someone formally opposes an action, does that mean we have
to take a y/n vote on the action? Or a multi-alternative vote if there
are more than simply the y/n alternatives?

***

As for brevity, it seems to me that Don is making an irrational
phobia about lack of brevity. The problem, to ER members, about our
technical debates on ER wasn't just the length of the postings. It
was their technical nature, and the fact that we were posting the
_debates_ on ER.

Steve's report isn't a debate. It doesn't contain things that will
be called too technical. Don is forgetting that many acceptable
non-technical postings on ER are quite long.

To say that complete information about the vote should be denied
ER members, for fear of a long posting sounds like an unfortunate mistake.

Don, it seems, feels that not only debates, but recommendations, shouldn't
be sent to ER. On the contrary, a number of ER members said that we should
keep the debate to ourselves, but should recommend to ER after we have
the debates among ourselves. 

So then: a) I hope Don isn't formally opposing the posting of Steve's
report; & b) If he is, then I call for a "yes" vote, in any subsequent
consequent vote on whether to post the report to ER.

But I feel that, if Don is formally opposing the posting, then by 
waiting so long to say so, by remaining silent while we were waiting
for objections, and then objecting just when we're about to post, 
there may something questionable about the validity of an objection
that's timed in that way, in terms of allowing it to further delay
the posting. Other opinions on that?


Mike




--