My belief is that the policy changed a long time ago but was not properly edited into the document. If I didn't believe that, I'd be taking a different approach here. My secondary belief is that the existing document is an ambiguous writing job, and I'm as entitled to my opinion as to the actual intention as anyone else with rights to edit it.
And, as such, I think that the right thing to do is to put up the edits and see who complains. I am perfectly happy to set the example of boldly editing documents to state the policy as I understand it, and then inviting people to comment. I am in part inspired by the other thread about the uselessness of DRAFT and suchlike markings. If you are so convinced that I am entirely changing, as opposed to clarifying, a Foundation invariant, then you should say as much on the thread over on infra. If you feel strongly enough, you should revert my commit. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Benson Margulies wrote on Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:01:03 -0500: >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Marcel Offermans >> <marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl> wrote: >> > Well, I don't think it's fine. As long as our release policy states that >> > all releases must be archived on /dist we should do exactly that. Or >> > change the policy. >> >> Give me a URL where this policy is and I'll edit it. > > The way to change a policy is to obtain consensus on the new policy, not > to edit the web page that documents the existing policy --- particularly > when someone just expressed an opinion in favour of the documented policy. > > You're setting a good counter-example to podlings. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
