Hello Sam,
On Sat 11 May 2019 at 01:24PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I agree that it would generally be unfortunate if we had policy text
> that could not be changed by the policy process. I can see rare
> situations where it might happen: we might have legal advice requiring
> specific text be in
Hello Sam,
On Fri 10 May 2019 at 03:57PM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> What are people's thoughts about this?
>
> Will this approach work for the TC and policy editors?
I think that the concrete suggestion you're making is that when a
question that comes before the T.C. is something that could be so
Hello Ian,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 02:50PM +01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> we delegated managing the process to the policy editors, but not the
>> actual policy decisions. They make consensus calls. They use their
>> judgment in a lot of ways.
>
> That is a decision *of* the policy editors. When the
Hello Russ,
On Mon 13 May 2019 at 08:40PM -07, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That said, just as a matter of style and usability, we should describe the
> common case first and make it clear that one doesn't have to open up the
> details unless something isn't working right.
>
> [...]
>
> The path that, t
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:07:53AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
> > docs before we can move on from doc-base like we did with menu.
> I don't think so: we can just remove doc-base without providing a
> replacement at the same time
Paul Wise writes:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:32:52 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Instead, if there is indeed consensus, we should change it so that it
>> no longer says that doc-base registration is recommended.
>
> We need a cross-distro cross-desktop standard for an index of
> docs before we can mov
6 matches
Mail list logo
