1 |
В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 13:20 +0200, Denis Dupeyron пишет: |
2 |
> That's one point of view. Another is that some policies have been |
3 |
> written in different times for different reasons, and may need to be |
4 |
> clarified or even updated to suit better the present situation. That's |
5 |
> the problem with time, it doesn't stand still and things happen |
6 |
> leading to situations changing. |
7 |
|
8 |
I agree that policies should be updated. But not retroactively. |
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
В Вск, 18/05/2008 в 11:16 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. пишет: |
12 |
> Ok, so are we following common sense or policy? |
13 |
|
14 |
Policy whatever that states and common sense in other cases... |
15 |
|
16 |
> If it's common sense, why would it have been so hard to clearly state |
17 |
> and document the above? |
18 |
|
19 |
As I understand Ciaran for historical reasons. But what we should do in |
20 |
case less then 50% of council attend the meeting is there. |
21 |
|
22 |
> Policies are stated, not assumed. We have way to many undocumented, |
23 |
> word of mouth, common sense policies. If we are going to run around |
24 |
> enforcing things. It must be documented, not assumed. |
25 |
|
26 |
Sure. And I think that somebody should suggest council something |
27 |
concrete on how to update the policy. But this does not change the fact |
28 |
that what happened was at times we had different policy. |
29 |
|
30 |
> FYI, IMHO common sense says we give them a chance to make up for the |
31 |
> meeting. Before rush to punishment. So who's common sense is correct per |
32 |
> policy? Mine or yours? |
33 |
|
34 |
No, this's not punishment. That's just procedural act we should take to |
35 |
be sure that policies we thought about work. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
Well, too many mails here so I think now I should decrease the noise |
39 |
here and shut up and wait for council actions. |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Peter. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |