Re: on the "M" of "NM"
On 10/05/2011 08:52 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:26:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> However, how about: NPM, as in New Project Member, instead of just NM,
>> which is the same as our old NM and leads to confusion?
>>
> Because NM is what people are already used to, it's part of the Debian
> culture about joining. Overloading that, preexisting, acronym is sort of
> the maximum change we can do preserving "backward compatibility", but
> still bringing existing processes closer to the correct (according to
> Constitution and GR) terminology.
>
> I'm not saying we should only do backward compatible changes, a more
> general reform of terminology might be good. But I AOL the many comments
> that perfect should not be the enemy of the good: let's do this one and
> improve over the status quo. (I.e.: your brainstorm is welcome, but
> let's avoid that it gets in the way of smaller, less invasive,
> improvements.)
>
> Cheers.
>
In this case, I'll have to voice my concern again that I really fear
that it's going to be even more confusing if we change the words
behind the abbreviation only (nobody will know about this change if
we don't advertize it enough).
Also, I don't get why you are writing that changing names for DD/DM
will deserve a GR and constitution review, when changing from NM to
NM wouldn't. Is it because NM isn't written into the stones of the
constitution?
Just my 2 cents,
Thomas
Reply to: