On Wed, 05 Apr 2006, JC Helary wrote: > >Well, yeah, that's exactly what Antti-Juhani is saying. > > No, he is saying that even though the page is poorly worded the > meaning should be clear enough. That is obviously not the case. No, he's telling you what it is trying to say, not whether or not the meaning is clear. [Indeed, you've agreed that it's poorly worded; surely that's not compatible with the meaning being clear?] > Which is not relevant since he is not in a position to give official > interpretations of a poorly worded status page. You'll find that no one is then in a position to give an "official interpretation". He is, though, a Developer, and the fact that three of us have now said that that's what it is getting at should hopefully indicate something. [If you need the DPL to clarify this, I suppose you'll be waiting awhile.] > I don't preach the choir. I've made concrete propositions in earlier > mails and Annti-Juhani only suggested that the text was clear enough > and one only had to be initiated to its secret meaning to be > satisfied with its wording. Please, submit a patch that clarifies the wording so that it is more inline with what the text was intended to say. Just to make it obvious: You don't need to be a developer to contribute to Debian. You can contribute to Debian in many of the common areas that developers contribute without actually being one, like reporting bugs, filing patches, fixing documentation, discussing technical solutions, maintaining packages, and flaming on mailing lists... Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature