On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote: > I disagree. The policy documents itself as a general policy about > "Debian Science" and not as a local applicable packaging guideline.
Whatever the document purports itself to be doesn't change what it actually is and what it affects. Since it wasn't discussed on -policy or -project or -science, it quite clearly has domain relevance only for the debian-science alioth project.[1] I think everyone is in violent agreement with this; what's left is the relatively minor concern of a misleading document, which can best be dealt with by submitting a patch to change the proposed document, instead of the continuation of this thread on this mailing list. Finally, it's in everyone's best interest to assume that people make mistakes instead of taking actions maliciously. Focusing on the desired outcome (in this case, clarification of the policy's baliwick) instead of renumeration is the best way to resolve the issue. I, for one, am glad that people in the debian-science alioth project are taking steps to adopt a consitent policy for the packages that they happen to maintain as a group. Even if I disagree with the nature of the policy, consistent methodologies in groups makes team maintenance much easier, and increases the quality of the resulting packages. Don Armstrong 1: In fact, I would have happily continued on in complete ignorance of this document because of this, no matter what it contained. -- If you find it impossible to believe that the universe didn't have a creator, why don't you find it impossible that your creator didn't have one either? -- Anonymous Coward http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167556&cid=13970629 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
