On Mon, 3 May 2004 16:39:37 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:33:25AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> This is a major factor contributing to my belief that such a
>> transition *guide* should not be given the status of a foundation
>> document. I
> Foundation documents lay foundations, and I don't see how a
> "transition" document lays a foundation--transition plans are
> support, not foundation.
I think that laying down the principles that guide the
project through transitions in fundamental principles could be a
corner stone of the project too.
This is especially true in this case, where the transition
guide provides guidelines to measure two competing goals set up in
the social contract, and how each of these fundamental needs should
be balanced.
> I think putting a transition guide on a level with the Social
> Contract is strange.
I would definitely have thought of putting a transition plan
up there, but this is not a transition plan.
manoj
--
In the pitiful, multipage, connection-boxed form to which the
flowchart has today been elaborated, it has proved to be useless as a
design tool -- programmers draw flowcharts after, not before, writing
the programs they describe. Fred Brooks, Jr.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
