Talk:Requests for comment/Approval of the rewritten Meta-Steward relationship document as policy

Comments

The proposed version is certainly clearer and resolves a lot of the ambiguities present in the current version. The text will need some copyediting, but the content of the proposal seems fine to me. I still think we should get rid of the local oversight flag, but that is a separate issue and approving this version of the policy doesn't preclude that discussion in any way. As a procedural question: since when are bureaucrat rights needed to close policy discussions on Meta? Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we move this to the project subject page instead? --Bencmq (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant to, but got lost at "Please use === Three level headers === for each subject you want to discuss." It's just general commentary on the proposal. Jafeluv (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• A bit of language cleanup of the proposed guideline will be useful. Deryck C. 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Hi. As the guideline was mainly written by me I must say that English is not my mothertonge so I realize my text is for sure far from perfection as I am. If there are obvious typos I would welcome their fixing. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  I once tried to fix a conjunction and got reverted, so I won't proofread the draft. --Nemo 07:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  In the diff you show you did also modified the draft and there was a reason for the revert. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  A reason which doesn't include reversion of grammar fixes. Thanks, Nemo 12:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)