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

Re: Must and should: new proposal (was: Re: Must and should again)

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 06:37:03PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 12:35:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > aj, who'd rather relying on things that are objectively verifiable, rather
> >     than oracles like the policy editor or the release manager
> You can expect people to go read the intro that defines should and
> must, when they read parts of policy in isolation, but I think you
> will be disappointed in that expectation.  Keeping the difference
> in mind also uses up valuable neurons that could be used to think

That's reasonable. I don't agree, but enough other people seem to that
it'll probably happen anyway. And I don't think it'll be harmful.

It's only justification for not using "must" and "should" to indicate
RCness, though; it's not justification to further try to distinguish
policy guidelines in the RFC sense though. AFAICS, anyway.

Of course, "Getting Julian to shut up about it already" is becoming
a more and more influentian reason as far as I'm concerned, so I'll
probably shut up about it soon too, but it'd be nice if there was an
actual point to making large scale policy changes like this...


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpGzOGZ7e8TN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: