| 1 |
On Friday, January 20, 2017 10:27:34 PM EST Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Just to point out, part of, why people are interpreting this as they |
| 4 |
> are: you frame it as a requirement, even a "mandatory requirement", |
| 5 |
> without specifying what recourse, if any, there is if such requirements |
| 6 |
> are not met. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I can understand that perspective. I am more of the mindset of not having |
| 9 |
recourse. I am not a fan of punishment. If projects repeatedly do not do it, |
| 10 |
oh well. That is their choice, just not encouraged. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> This implicitly leaves the default mechanisms in place, as |
| 13 |
> has been discussed elsewhere. A requirement with no enforcement, |
| 14 |
> especially one which explicitly avoids enforcement is a suggestion, or |
| 15 |
> request, not a requirement. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
By stating mandatory the idea is to encourage it to be considered something |
| 18 |
that should be done and not ignored. I would think non-compliance to be more |
| 19 |
egg on face of leaders or members. Not a punishable offense. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives