Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> writes: > At this stage? If you are not willing to listen to feedback, > that had better be never.
Feedback on the machine-parseable copyright specification is openly solicited (though it is currently inefficiently gathered and processed, and that needs to be addressed) and has driven the entire formation of the specification to date. > If the intent is for this to be broadly adopted, the specification > should be fixed as early as possible, and we should not adopt a > flawed specification inder the guise that it is currently > "voluntary". I don't see what you're saying with this. Are you saying that it should not be adopted by *anyone* to see how it works, until it becomes mandatory? Or is there some specific “we” you're thinking of? Surely it's necessary for the specification to actually be implemented in various real circumstances (which I can only see as meeting the definition of “adopted” by those who choose to use it), to find and fix the wrinkles *before* making it mandatory. > Frankly, I think that the spec should have optional parts, and parts > we need, and we should try to come to an consensus on the required > part of the spec, and the optional parts should be clearly outlined > in the specification. Yes. I don't know anyone interested in this specification who has proposed otherwise. -- \ “I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.” | `\ —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
