Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files
On Tue, Mar 24 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38:47AM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced that machine-parseable formats are genuinely
>> useful or maintainable and I feel that machine-parseable
>> requirements inevitably impair human readability of copyright files.
>> That's not a win, AFAICT.
> Don't use it then, I guess.
> As Steve pointed out, we're working an a format that people can use
> voluntarily if they wish. We are not suggesting that this format
> become mandatory at this stage, at least not until it had seen
> widespread adoption.
At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback,
that had better be never. If the intent is for this to be broadly
adopted, the specification should be fixed as early as possible, and we
should not adopt a flawed specification inder the guise that it is
currently "voluntary". Frankly, I think that the spec should have
optional parts, and parts we need, and we should try to come to an
consensus on the required part of the spec, and the optional parts
should be clearly outlined in the specification.
> Even if only one person finds the format helpful, there has been
> benefit. For every additional person who finds this format helpful,
> even more benefit is had, and each packages shares a consistent,
> readable, and parseable structure.
Nice sound bite. But a spec or a standard's big value comes if
it is fixed to be widely accepted, even if it means that some parts of
the standard are "optional".
Westheimer's Discovery: A couple of months in the laboratory can
frequently save a couple of hours in the library.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C