Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
[...]
Stephen, rules are there to be used *by* us, not to maket *them* use us.We can go through it again if you want. I'm kinda fed up with all "procedure" already though. Time- and effort-consuming, this "formalism".Don't get fed up - what we working oon is really importat stuff - it will outlive Avalon, Avlon 5 and UberContainer. You are one of the founding fathers and little children in a 2048 will look up a digital plaque comemorating the your words of wisdom attributed to someone called LS.
There is _no_ safety in numbers.
Laws are effective not because they are precise, but because there is police and a law system. In Apache we have a diffeent system, based on peer review and pressure, and chain-of-command with PMC-chair-board.
The ultimate decider is the board, whatever we decide first. And the board does what is best for Apache, not what the rules say. Quality standards say in esence that one should and do what is written, and write what one does. If the rule is ok, one uses it. If there are problems, one does something, writes what has been done, and moves on.
In Italy we have *very* precise laws. So long in fact that everyone can appeal to interpretations of it. Imagine if nobody believed in laws...
Let's try to follow the rules, but if they are not followed, let's think if it's the case to change *them* to follow us.
There is _no_ safety in numbers.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- There is _no_ safety in numbers -
- There is _no_ safety in numbers -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
