Manoj, Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I apologise profusely (I was fairly tired at the time I wrote it, so may have started to be rather more argumentative that I meant to be)
I think we actually hold fairly similar opinions about this subject. Did you ever see my previous attempt to calm this discussion down a bit ? > No one said policy is all encompassing. It does not have any > loopholes. Errors of omission shall always exist. Not errors of > commision. I thought you had by implication. I was clearly wrong, sorry. That's probably what gave rise to my extreme characterisation of your arguments. > Philip> In either case, having a policy statement that claims to be > Philip> the final authority will gain us nothing, and could be > Philip> actually harmful. > > I disagree. It would have stopped at least one person, namely, me. Fair enough, lets put it in then ;-) Anyway, I think you've started being just a little argumentative now, since I don't believe that you, or anyone else for that matter, wants to violate policy in a destructive way. You seemed (to my tired eyes) to be accusing people of objecting to: Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior approach. James Troup, Dale Scheetz, or anyone else have a problem with this ? My only objection was that there was no need to include a clause like that in policy, because it is self evident. This discussion has conclusively proved me wrong about that, so lets put such a clause in policy. Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
