On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:30:43PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > now you expect people to endure a painful process to make obviously > needed amendments. For the sake of forward movement, I'd like to suggest that we're not far from total agreement here: 1) There may not be a good reason for requiring these users, and especially at a particular uid. 2) We should investigate why the decision was made in the first place. This is only due diligence. I would expect any distribution to do the same before making a change that _potentially_ broke expected behavior. 3) If we find that there wasn't a good reason for these users, or that the reasons don't outweigh the 'brokenness' of requiring them, they should be removed via the proper methods for standards revision. Unfortunately, this isn't quite as easy as simply making the change, as the first spec revisions, like it or not, are printed and labeled. This doesn't mean that the change can't be made however. Moving forward, it would seem most productive to simply find the past discussion on this isssue, if any, then counter any decisions made in the past with the discusion from the past couple of days. It seems likely that this will result in a spec change, but not pursuing at least a basic review of the facts (and history of that part of the spec, if any) would be negligent. -drew -- M. Drew Streib <dtype@dtype.org>, Free Standards Group (freestandards.org) co-founder, SourceForge.net | core team, freedb | sysadmin, Linux Intl. creator, keyanalyze report | maintnr, *.us.pgp.net | other freedom/law
Attachment:
pgpTJtULbm0K9.pgp
Description: PGP signature