Re: Conflicts between developers and policy
Manoj,
Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I apologise profusely (I
was fairly tired at the time I wrote it, so may have started to be rather more
argumentative that I meant to be)
I think we actually hold fairly similar opinions about this subject. Did you
ever see my previous attempt to calm this discussion down a bit ?
> No one said policy is all encompassing. It does not have any
> loopholes. Errors of omission shall always exist. Not errors of
> commision.
I thought you had by implication. I was clearly wrong, sorry.
That's probably what gave rise to my extreme characterisation of your
arguments.
> Philip> In either case, having a policy statement that claims to be
> Philip> the final authority will gain us nothing, and could be
> Philip> actually harmful.
>
> I disagree. It would have stopped at least one person, namely, me.
Fair enough, lets put it in then ;-)
Anyway, I think you've started being just a little argumentative now,
since I don't believe that you, or anyone else for that matter, wants to
violate policy in a destructive way.
You seemed (to my tired eyes) to be accusing people of objecting to:
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior approach.
James Troup, Dale Scheetz, or anyone else have a problem with this ?
My only objection was that there was no need to include a clause like that in
policy, because it is self evident. This discussion has conclusively proved
me wrong about that, so lets put such a clause in policy.
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: