Re: the netbase/inetd conspiracy
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> No, people are disagreeing about how they read it. It's in English,
> that's a fact of life. People *aren't* giving *any* thought to which
> possible behaviours are the most beneficial.
If you think your proposed policy is the best one, then fine. Do you
think that the correct way to decide policy is to have you stamp your
foot and insist everyone else isn't doing it right?
I don't care which way policy should be worded, but I think it should
match practice.
The document, on the most natural reading, says that changes to
configuration files must be preserved, and it seems pretty clear to me
that deleting a configuration file constitutes a change, and thus must
be preserved. Three people have so far chimed in, by my count, in
agreement that this is what the text means.
If you don't think that this is what the text should *say*, that's
fine; we should then fix the test.
> All it takes for something to turn into an "actual disagreement" is for
> it to be mentioned in public. Going through the policy process for every
> ambiguity that's mentioned on a mailing list is fundamentally unhealthy
> -- it's frustrating since it's a distraction from useful work, and it
> inhibits public discussions of things when you don't have the time or
> patience to be sidetracked for no good reason. (And yes, I can name at
> least two worthwhile issues that're being delayed precisely because I
> feel this way. I'm not going to, for reasons I just explained.)
If you don't think that it's worth the effort, then geez, stop putting
in effort. I mean, if it really *doesn't matter*, then let Manoj have
his way. Personally, I don't care which way it goes.
> Have you any idea how fucking annoying it is to say something, then have
> some fucking moron on a mailing list pretend I said the exact opposite
> thing? Do you think I'm such a moron that even having thought about the
> issue, and discussed it extensively for years, I don't know what I want?
What do you want? You want policy not to match practice? You want
confusion? You want to get to dictate the rules and the rest of
march along?
Reply to: