Hello, On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:11:42AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/08/2011 05:04 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I cannot > > speak for them but I believe they find the act of *changing* the meaning > > of the acronym confusing rather then the new meaning per se. That > > confusion can be mitigated by simply not making a big fuss about the > > change; it can just be an incremental improvement that only new > > applicants will face. > > > > > So not only people will be confused by NM vs NM, but now, > you're saying that not communicating about this confusing > change will improve (in your words, "mitigate") the situation?!? > > First, I don't think this was in the thread (or, I missed it). > > Second, it seems reverse thinking to me, I don't get your logic. > I would have thought that communicating a lot, and telling > everyone about the new definition would have helped people to > not get confused and use the new words behind the acronym. Frankly, I don't think it'll be confusing at all. Both meanings will continue to live on for a while, and then if we consistently refer to New Member instead of New Maintainer, the old one will fade away. This is a good incremental change that helps us along the way to clearing up the misleading titles we give to people. Regards, -- Iain Lane [ iain@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ laney@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ laney@ubuntu.com ] PhD student [ ial@cs.nott.ac.uk ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature