[geo-discuss] Inaccuracy of messages on the website

Tue Mar 7 04:36:46 UTC 2006

I know that new amendments are not possible but:

1. Saying what amendments you would like (even if you couldn't have 
them) make clear that we have a positive agenda (we only support 
rejection because there isn't the necessary open access stuff)

2. It would also be good to say which amendments of those that are 
available you did want e.g. amendment 2, 4 .... Given that even if 
rejection were on the table -- and it is my understanding that it is not 
-- it would still be better to say what positive amendments are wanted 
before going to rejection (just saying we want rejection seems to me 
very unlikely to fly -- but you are on the ground there and may know more).

~rufus

Benjamin Henrion wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It should be clear that it is not time for proposing strange amendments
> as I read here:
> 
> http://publicgeodata.org/ContactYourMEP
> 
> "Try and suggest positive amendments that would make the text
> acceptable"
> 
> The time is not to suggest amemdments (this is not possible in second
> reading, are the first reading amendments only garantees searching and
> viewing through a portal, which we all know that it sucks and does not
> garantee public geo data).
> 