On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:25, Chase Peeler <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. <george.bany...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler <chasepee...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean >>> the >>> > original RFC that passed is still in effect? >>> > >>> >>> >>> Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more >>> confusing than it was before. >>> >>> The "No" column on this RFC already includes people who voted "Yes" on >>> the >>> previous version; is this an indication that they have changed their mind >>> about removing short tags, or that they prefer the original proposal? >>> >>> I think we urgently need to clarify this, and may need to reset the vote >>> with one or more clearer questions. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> Rowan Collins >>> [IMSoP] >> >> >> This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : " >> This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different >> deprecation approach." meaning that the previous one is void. >> I don't know why this is ambiguous and needs to be said once again. >> >> Just to clarify - the existence of this RFC effectively means the > original never existed. > > >> Best regards >> >> George P. Banyard >> > > > -- > Chase Peeler > chasepee...@gmail.com > In a sense yes, however this RFC is a vote on the implementation which would have landed with the previous one but was not the one voted. So you can disregard the result of the previous one not the controversial discussion it generated after the vote was accepted. Hope this clarifies everything. Best regards George P. Banyard
