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

Re: Social Committee proposal

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:26:37 +0000, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.iki.fi> said: 

> On to, 2007-01-25 at 18:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> But the dev-ref is optional -- last time I read it, I did not find
>> it very useful tome, and I disagreed with a lot of its dictums, and
>> so I largely ignore it while building packages; I rely on my sense
>> of best practices. The tech ctte does not come down on me like a
>> tonne of bricks for not removing the . from my short descriptions.

> Nobody cares if you do things differently from what the dev-ref
> suggests. Heck, nobody cares if you violate the policy, either, as
> long as nothing breaks. (It's just that for the policy, usually
> something does break, if you violate it.)

> Likewise for a social policy: as long as there are no problems,
> nobody cares if you violate it. If the social policy were to say
> "don't swear", and you do swear, but everyone understands that you
> had a really, really bad day (you lost your job, your spouse wants a
> divorce, the tax people want to audit you, your car was stolen,
> *and* someone filed an RC bug against your package), and is willing
> to ignore your one-time transgression, then enforcing the policy
> against swearing just for the sake of enforcing the policy would be
> stupid.

> (I'm not saying "don't swear" would be a good rule, it's just an
> example here.)

        But this is the problem.  It is called selective
 enforcement -- there are rules on the law books here in the US that
 make no sense (you can't invite young white males to play billiards
 or pool in Mobile, Alabama -- old men, women of any age, or young
 black men are apparently fine).  No one cares about such laws --
 until the powers that be want to make an example/ harass someone
 /throw the book at them, and suddenly they have a $2000 fine for
 getting friends over for a pool game.

        Selective enforcement  can be chilling.

        Also, your example has the negative implication, no matter how
 you disclaim it, that the end result of a social policy is gonna make
 me feel like I am in a disney movie.

        No fucking way, man.  No fucking way.

2180, U.S. History question: What 20th Century U.S. President was
almost impeached and what office did he later hold?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: