Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> + It would be preferable if the organizations holding assets in > > >> + trust for Debian undertake certain obligations for the handling of > > >> + such assets, as an example: [...] > You're right to correct the original, but I don't think you've nailed it > yet. > > If there's a "should" then "obligation" is clearly the wrong word to go > with it. And you don't "undertake an obligation" -- you "meet an > obligation", or "undertake to meet" it.
Agreed. I don't think obligation in the original meant a MUST or a will, but something more like offering certain undertakings, but I could be wrong. How about: Organizations holding assets in trust for Debian should make certain promises about their handling of such assets... > or > > It is preferred that organisations holding assets in trust for Debian > should comply with certain conditions regarding their handling of such > assets... ? Thanks for the phrasing help, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
