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

Re: Conflicts between developers and policy



Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:

>>  Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> also quoted things
>> similar. So, we have officially accepted and ratified the Policy
>> documents, I take it, and I just missed the party?
>> 
>> If the project has indeed ``adopted'' the Policy documents, I have
>> nothing further to say. I just wish you guys had brought this up
>> when people were fighting the Policy tooth and nail.
>> 
>> If we have not adopted policy, then quoting the lexicon is a
>> meaningless play on words; and even though they be named policy,
>> they are evidently not.
>> 
>> Which is it? (can't have it both ways, folks).

Philip> Are you suggesting that we should interpret the meaning of the
Philip> policy differently depending upon whether it has been adopted
Philip> by the project ?

	Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a
 body. Hace we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents
 of the policy documents differently? no, but the significance of the
 policy documents definitely shall change.

Philip> If that is the case, we can never adopt it, since the act of
Philip> adoption would (according to you) change it's meaning, and
Philip> therefore it would no longer be the document we decided to
Philip> adopt.

	That is not what I said. I said we cannot in all honesty call
 something policy unless it has been adopted by the project; so I am
 objecting to the NAME of the ``policy'' docuents. Unless you aver
 that indeed, the project has adopted policy.

Philip> I would also say that there is no need to adopt it in any
Philip> formal way, since the constructive thing to do is to follow it
Philip> where appropriate, and fix it otherwise --- what other use
Philip> would we have for a policy document ?

	If we all actually agree to this, then that would be
 tantamount to adopting policy.

Philip> Regardless of any adoption of policy, I will still reserve the
Philip> right to apply my judgement to the way I construct packages,
Philip> and I would hope you would too.
 
Philip> Are you suggesting that you would do something destructive if
Philip> it were allowed by policy ?

	No, Assuming I knew better. We are supposed to generally treat
 policy as correct, and as wisdom handed down by technically competent
 people. There are lots if people who would follow something blindly.

Philip> Do we really have to close all loopholes,

	Yes.

Philip> or can we rely on one another to be reasonable and
Philip> constructive, without needing a watertight policy with which
Philip> to cudgel one another ?

	
Philip> so why start writing rules with a sub-text of ``you developers
Philip> are a bunch of untrustworthy skumbags'', when we can rely on
Philip> one another to be reasonable instead ?

	Having an ANSI C standard does not mean us C programmers are,
 and I quote, "a bunch of untrustworthy skumbags:, unquote. This line
 of argument is puerile.

Philip> If you treat people like children, they will tend to act like
Philip> them.  Let's decide to be adult about this instead.

	I am glad ISO does not listen to you.

	manoj
-- 
 Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: