[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#944920: Revise terminology used to specify requirements



Dear Policy Editors,

On 21-11-2019 13:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
> [Disclaimer: the words below are as a member of the release team, but
> not necessarily those of the team. We haven't discussed this yet.]

We have had a discussion, and there were no objections against my vision
below.

> I can envision that if Policy carries such a summary list, our policy
> would mention the version of Policy it was based on, to make sure that
> Policy doesn't suddenly change what we as the RT agreed on.

So, yes, we would welcome the Policy to maintain a summary list that we
could reference. We already acknowledge that there will be items in the
Policy text that we balance differently for RC-ness, so there will be
exceptions maintained by us.

Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: