On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:57:19PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > Please don't assume that only DDs read debian-devel. > > Don't worry, I haven't: I just don't know of a more accurate heuristic > for determining when somebody started to get involved. I don't see why, in this context, that's a useful heuristic to have. If you want to debunk someone's argument, please do so based on their (de)merits, rather than on when the poster started to get involved. More specifically for this case, I don't think anyone should be considered at fault for not having followed n distinct iterations of a recurring discussion. That's an impossibly high standard to hold people to. The mere fact that the discussion is recurring should rather hint at the need of having some kind of documentation about the status of this discussion (e.g. a DEP, or a wiki page, or a bug report, whatever is appropriate), containing a summary of the arguments in favors and against and corresponding counterarguments. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature