Re: update page
* James A. Treacy <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2001-11-29 12:51]:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> * James A. Treacy <email@example.com> [2001-11-28 10:26]:
>> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:34:37PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>> >> P.S.: In general, it isn't a must for translators to read this list,
>> >> unfortunately...
>> > While we don't enforce the policy, we do state on the translation pages
>> > that translators should subscribe to debian-www.
>> <http://rfc.net/rfc2119.txt> for the difference between MUST and SHOULD
> Please don't lecture me on the proper use of English.
You simply got me wrong. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> I used should and I meant should.
And I used must and meant must.
> Even using the restrictive definitions from rfc2119 I feel that should
> is the proper word.
For translators in general, yes. But IMHO not for
> Translators may have a valid reason for not subscribing to debian-www.
... which I'm always open to hear. There is no point in doing an
exception when there is no reason known for it.
>> I personally would see it rather as a MUST at least for the translation
> Personally, I don't see the point of stating something must be done when
> there is no enforcement,
So - then let's please remove the advertising statement from the
mailing list description.
> I have added the following sentence to english/devel/website/index.wml:
> Translation coordinators <strong>MUST</strong> subscribe.
Thanks, I'm totally happy with that.
 And just to not having anyone get me wrong: This was meant IRONIC,
and *not* as a real statement....
<morgoth> jeder is ma unfähig, ich hoffe nur das das bald aufhört
<weasel> morgoth: das legt sie nie, glaubs mir
* weasel spricht da aus eigener erfahrung