On 10 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances", > Santiago> we could be drawing circles forever. See: > > On the contrary, if every one objected formally all the time > we shall never resolve anything.
This has not happened in this case. We decided to switch from FSSTND to FHS, which includes switching from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc, and nobody objected, so we had a consensus. This issue is already resolved by current policy, which says to use /usr/share/doc, with no special symlinks or anything. > The moethod right now talks about, > if there was no consensus, to call for a supermajority vote of > 75%. Under you model of doing thnigs, votes shall never be required > -- either everyone agrees, or if 4 people do not like vene one part > of the proposal, it dies. > > I think that is unacceptable. I don't have any special "model of doing things". I just think that we reached a consensus when we decided to switch from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc. Now some people want to break the consensus and go back to /usr/doc, and I consider this as a bad thing, because it breaks a previous consensus. That's all. If you think current policy procedures are unacceptable, please amend them. I don't think it is necessary. > I think we do need to exercise restraint in formal > objections. If you are so sure that you are right, it should not be > hard to convinve the others of your views. If you can't, then may be > you are indeed the one whoi is ``wrong''. Well, this particular issue seems to be a matter of (subjective) opinion, more than an issue of being "right" or "wrong". Examples: - "I think that mixing /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc is ugly" - "I think that mixing /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc is not so ugly". - "I think potato should be consistent". - "I don't think mixing /usr/doc and /usr/share/doc will make potato to be inconsistent". - "potato will be frozen very soon" - "potato will not be frozen very soon". > I think that the current attitude of intellectual intolerance > (I *must be right, and everyone else is obvioulsy wrong) would make > the policy list ineffective. The policy list is still effective for dealing with technical issues, and I hope it will continue to be. This issue, however, seems not to be very technical but quite subjective. I wonder if the *technical* commitee has really something to say about this. Thanks. -- "f67164dd8e28e231344e187266927c61" (a truly random sig)
