[Previous by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by date - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Previous by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
[Next by subject - Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:11:32 +0200
To: PML <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: PROPOSED ARTICLE X - autonyms
>> This possibility was raised at the Paris meeting (by David Cannatella= , as JRW noted) and voted down by what I seem to remember was a strong maj= ority. << OK... it's over 2 months ago, and I didn't take any notes... but I ca= n't remember a vote on this happening. Besides, as you have yourself remi= nded us several times, those votes were just polls, not anything binding -- a= nd the full "Article X" had not yet been invented, so it wasn't available as= an alternative. >> On the other hand, it would solve the problem of us trying to decide,= based on our own personal opinions and those of small samples of our collea= gues, whether it is better to legislate a rule forcing people to use a name= formed with a standard affix versus a rule forcing them to use an exsiting n= ame versus some intermediate strategy. In other words, it would allow us= ers to determine which alternative they prefer, which might then allow us to= settle on one as a rule at some time in the future. I am in favor of this g= eneral proposal; << So am I (ignoring for the moment the possibility that the rewritten A= rticle 10 will be even better).