Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

✨ clarifications, fixes, grammar #48

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 2.7-again
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

✨ clarifications, fixes, grammar #48

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ctcpip
Copy link
Member

@ctcpip ctcpip commented Nov 14, 2024

  • no process changes, just clarifications and fixes
  • note this is targeting the 2.7-again branch, so that PR should get merged first and then this PR retargeted to gh-pages

@ctcpip ctcpip requested a review from a team November 14, 2024 19:49
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

<p>In the first case, delegates may consider that the violation of a constraint is sufficiently serious reason to withhold their consensus for stage advancement. The dissenting delegate(s) and the champion(s) should work together accordingly to resolve the issue.

<p>Not all issues with proposals are easily solvable. Some issues are too fundamental and serious, requiring a significant rework of the proposal, or may be unsolvable. In these situations, if consensus is withheld, it might be referred to colloquially as a "block". The proposal will require substantial work to address the concern, may need to be rethought all together, or may not have enough justification to pursue at this time.

<p>When possible, it is preferable to raise an actionable constraint. The committee does not have an established concept of a rejected proposal--it is always possible for the champion to make changes and come back to ask for consensus.

<h2>Conditional Advancement</h2>
<h2>Conditional advancement</h2>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why not use title case for headings?

Copy link
Member Author

@ctcpip ctcpip Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think either works fine, but sentence case was more prevalent throughout, so normalizing in this direction results in less git blame impact

Copy link
Member Author

@ctcpip ctcpip Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

a brief romp through UX and a11y guidelines reveals a clear preference for sentence case, for ease and readability, among other things. ditto from guidelines from Google and IBM

@ctcpip ctcpip requested a review from ljharb November 19, 2024 18:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants