[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for policy clarification



On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:23:09AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 9:35 AM, seth vidal <skvidal fedoraproject org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 11:30 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> >
> >> Policy is the rules under which people agree to work together.  When you
> >> have policies that you simply ignore then you end up with people pointing at
> >> your ignoring of policy as a valid reason for you to ignore policy.  That's
> >> why I wrote the second stanze about changing policy.  when you update the
> >> policy to reflect the realities that you face, then you make the policies
> >> better for everyone who is trying to make better packaging choices.
> >
> > Right - we've had this discussion before.
> >
> > Rules have power b/c we give them to them. They are not empowered on
> > their own.
> >
> > That is a political-philosophy question :)
> 
> How about we just keep ti to an etymological one. In the lingo of
> RFC's, policies are MUST and guidelines are SHOULD. Who empowers them
> etc can stay with this evenings argument on how many angels dance on
> the head of a pin.
> 
> As it stands, we have written certain things as MUST and should
> rewrite them as SHOULD or rewrite them altogether.
> 
EPEL and FESCO has policies, The FPC makes policies that are labeled as
Guidelines.  Some of the FPC Guidelines use should and must in laymen's
terms rather than RFC terms.  So we should rename the packaging guidelines
to packaging policy and then someone needs to proofread the guidelines for
every use of should and must.  (although I think the bolded should and musts
are consistent in the FPG)

-Toshio.

Attachment: pgpsM5GTPAjgF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]