Previously Chris Waters wrote: > Well, a) people don't pay attention to it, b) none of the discussions > about how and what to change have gotten anywhere, and c) based on the > evidence of b, there's actually no reason to believe that it *will* be > changing anytime soon, beyond the proposal that joeyh and I have > hammered out.
I have never seen that proposal anywhere that I can remember which would explain a) and b). If you announce it loud enough (debian-devel-announce, [PROPOSAL] in the subject or so) you will get attention. > My real problem with wichert's objection is that it seems to be a sort > of meta-objection: "I object to this because people might object to > this". I object myself. I feel that putting something in policy which we already know is not completely correct (otherwise it wouldn't need to be changed) is really silly and reduces the value of policy. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
pgpgxoWKv1XZh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
