On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:08:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > So, the question here is not really about whether or not "should" is > appropriate but whether Policy is the right place to say "should" about > this since it's a procedural issue more than a package content issue.
Right - it's not that "should" is incorrect, but that Policy is the wrong place to decide this. > Having some tendencies towards being a rules purist myself, I'm > sympathetic to that argument, but the more I thought about this, the more > I feel like clarity here is more important than maintaining a strict > separation of powers between Policy and other documents. > Charles and Steve, you're the two who objected to or were avoiding the > "should" language. Does this persuade you? It doesn't persuade me, but I don't object to your change. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
