Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> 'Manoj Srivastava wrote:'
>> Well, I think if one is not constrained to follow policy, nor
>> required to do so, I see no reason to actually follow policy. Why
>> is it so bad to require policy to be followed?
Chris> How would you enforce it? Why require something which your
Chris> police force cannot enforce? I hope you don't wish to flog or
Chris> flame violators?
I wish you would talk to Raul directly. He points out that
violations of policy shall be enforced thus:
a) since policy is supposed to be authoritative for bug filers, and
policy violation can be flagged as a bug.
b) any disputes about the bug are to be resolved by the tech
committee
c) the tech committee looks at the policy manual for guidance.
There.
Chris> Since we are all conscientious people here, it seems that we
Chris> would be better off using bugs and policy as a means of
Chris> _persuading_ others to follow us. Not as something required.
Unless there is some reason for me to follow policy, I
shan't. I shall use my own judgement, and if we have not adopted
policy, then even the name is wrong.
Chris> I agree that developing impediments to bad packages is
Chris> important. But I don't see any value in trying to enforce
Chris> those impediments.
Saying Policy has to be followed is not enforcement. We
enforce violations exactly as you said -- with bug reports.
I do confess to being surprised at the vehement opposition a
simple sentence like "policy should be followed, except for certain
riders, which are ...". I wonder.
manoj
--
"It's a very valuable function and requirement that you're
performing, so have a great day and keep a stiff upper lip." Dan
Quayle, Prince William Sound, May 1989
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
