| 1 |
On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:41 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This |
| 3 |
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to |
| 4 |
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based |
| 5 |
> on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its |
| 6 |
> wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, |
| 7 |
> not the wording. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It |
| 10 |
> makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is pretty much my feelings exactly on many of our policies. We |
| 13 |
shouldn't *have* to document every single thing that someone can |
| 14 |
possibly do wrong. We should be able to have a group that can make |
| 15 |
decisions based on the intent of the original policy. It would also |
| 16 |
make it quite a bit easier to keep up with the policies if we aren't |
| 17 |
having to constantly go back and re-read them for all of the changes. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 21 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 22 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 23 |
Games - Developer |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives