[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: on the "M" of "NM"

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 02:06:51AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> But since I had the impression that you didn't feel like changing
> things further should happen,

That impression is not correct; I apologize if I've given it.

(At the same time, I've seen too many times in Debian the desire to
change things "all or nothing" and, too many of those times it has
invariably ended up being "nothing". This partly explain my "incremental
changes" attitude.)

> Do you think we would need a GR to change only the names like
> in my proposal, to make them less confusing, while still keeping
> the definitions we already have?

Thomas, now it's you giving wrong impressions :) Why the heck are you
trying to shoot yourself in the foot with GRs?  The NM process is not
defined by Constitution, so there is no need to change the Constitution
to change it. Please re-read the Constitution and you realize that

What *is* written in the Constitution is something which I've already
mentioned in this thread (again, please re-read past messages before
asking something, otherwise we'll just be wasting everybody's time).
Namely: the terms "Debian Project Members" and "Debian Developers" (used

The other GRs that are constraining name changes are the DM GR and the
recent one about membership (the latter has been carefully worded *not*
to introduce new names, so it should be completely orthogonal to what we
might want to do about terminology).

Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: