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

Re: on the "M" of "NM" - summary


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.


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

Reply to: