>
> > proposes and would make sense for inclusion in ELPA. I'll copy the
> > relevant parts of that section here:
>
> I think you are missing my point.  I didn't mean the details on the
> level you seem to focus, I meant the deviations from our requirements
> for code accepted into Emacs.
>
> I have comments on your specific points (most of them are in ELPA's
> README), but I see no reason to start a tangent, because IMO much more
> important issues are at stake.
>

Ah, yes I was. Thanks for clarifying! :-)