[CRISP-TEAM] Exposed bottoms.

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
> 
> 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.

All of them?  To be clear, I’m not saying there are six instances, I’m saying there are six competing _variants_, most with multiple instances.  This is exactly the sort of mess that the editorial process is supposed to clean up.  If you all profess not to care about it, why are you all sending so many edits to those phrases?

Here’s a proposal: “open, transparent, and bottom-up”

That’s the variant that seems to have been used the most times, whether because its advocates have been most vocal, or because it’s preferred I don’t know, but something is better than nothing.

May I have a sense of consensus that this isn’t worth continuing to bicker over, and that I can just clean them all up to that variant?

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150115/c2831e17/signature.asc>