Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
Raul> It's that things which people haven't invented yet concept which
Raul> has had me objecting to this concept of "policy must be
Raul> followed". If you look at policy as a set of *goals* rather
Raul> than a set of *rules* I think you'll have something a lot more
Look, policy is never going to be all encompassing. There
shall always be errors of omission (things not yet invented). In
which case, we enter into the ``let us get policy correcterd phase''.
Either policy is correct, in which case we follow it, or it is
incorrect, in which case we mend it, and then follow the mended
policy. No goals. Just a set of mutating, adapting rules, which at
any given time are our best effort.
Raul> When you arrive on a new job, do you expect to be told
Raul> procedures for thinking, for using the restroom, and for
Raul> walking? If you started advocating such things, what kind of
Raul> reception do you think you'd get?
Now who is characterizing the policy writers as being stupid?
Policy should dictate what the result are, for the most part, and not
how it is done, except in cases where there is a clear path (do not
write to files in /tmp unless you were careful in creating them; they
could be linked to /etc/passwd).
So policy should not contain things analogous to procedures
for using the restroom. However, it would contain acceptable use
definitions for the office machine.
"A body on vacation tends to remain on vacation unless acted upon by
an outside force." Carol Reichel
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org