[CRISP-TEAM] Exposed bottoms.
nurani at netnod.se
Thu Jan 15 18:13:39 CET 2015
I agree with Alan and Andrei.
I see no reason for this wording to be exactly the same everywhere. (It's not a legal term that needs to be exact.)
Simply keep them the way they are.
On 15 jan 2015, at 18:08, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> I do not think the differences are substantial, so IMO it is not
> important that we harmonize this. I suggest you leave them as they are.
> Bill Woodcock wrote on 15/01/15 17:56:
>> You guys keep clobbering each other on these, and as a result,
>> we’ve been ranging back and forth from two to nearly a dozen
>> variants, currently six:
>>> bottom-up, open, and inclusive
>>> active, bottom-up
>>> to bottom-up, open, transparent, and consensus-based
>>> openness, transparency, and bottom-up
>>> open, transparent, and bottom-up
>>> open, bottom-up and inclusive
>> Can you pick just one, let me harmonize them, and then stop
>> clobbering each other on this particular issue?
>> _______________________________________________ CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP