| 1 |
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:12:57 -0500 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Just to point out, part of, why people are interpreting this as they |
| 5 |
> > are: you frame it as a requirement, even a "mandatory requirement", |
| 6 |
> > without specifying what recourse, if any, there is if such requirements |
| 7 |
> > are not met. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I can understand that perspective. I am more of the mindset of not having |
| 10 |
> recourse. I am not a fan of punishment. If projects repeatedly do not do it, |
| 11 |
> oh well. That is their choice, just not encouraged. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think that's possibly what confused me. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Terms like "Promoted", "Encouraged", "Recommended" are probably closer |
| 16 |
to your perspective in that they convey being "Very strong indications that |
| 17 |
a thing should be done", instead of "An indication a thing _must_ be done". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Because indicating _must_ does imply definitive actionable consequences for |
| 20 |
non-compliance. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Where's the others only imply that somebody might bend your arm and give you |
| 23 |
a conversation if compliance is not met. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And then you can term the failure to comply as an opposite: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
"Neglecting to report is strongly discouraged" |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Whereas if you say "mandatory"/"must", then the opposites are |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"must not", and "forbidden" |
Archives