Re: Conflicting packages not of extra priority.
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 02:11:30PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> There is only one person's opinion;
This is not true.
I've seen five persons expressing their positive opinions on this
matter - Ian Jackson, Martin Schulze, Jules Bean, Enrique Zanardi and
Santiago Vila, in no particular order. Since one of them is AFAIK the
very author of the definition, this should weigh something.
Additionally, at least I have been silent about my opinion, which is
the same as Ian and Santiago's. So we have six people who interpret
the policy in a certain way, possibly more who have remained silent.
> you must refer to policy itself, which you have failed to do.
This is *again* untrue.
Santiago and others have quoted the policy many times. When his
interpretation was challenged, he asked Ian (who wrote the
definitions) and got an agreeing opinion. I have not seen anybody
argue successfully against Santiago's point; I have only seen
differing opinions about the *interpretation* of policy. This is a
big difference.
I agree that a clarification of policy would be in order, either way.
I, however, doubt that we'd be able to push it through the policy
procedure in time for Slink.
Antti-Juhani
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
EMACS, n.: Emacs May Allow Customised Screwups
(unknown origin)
Reply to: