Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?"):
> Personally, as a member of the FTP Team (Assistant, not Master), I'm
> reluctant to participate in discussions like this unless I'm highly
> confident that I understand the team policy on such matters
> completely enough to speak totally correctly on the matter because I
> anticipate that regardless of any disclaimers I might put on any
> inputs they will be taken as, more or less, stating the team's
> position on the issue.I understand what you say and it does make sense, but I'm sorry to say that I think this ultimately makes matters worse. When we have a situation with no-one from the ftp team is willing to say anything in public without a formal settled internal consensus, the result is (in the nature of human institutions) nearly no output at all. And of course in that situation everyone on the outside is reduced to kremlinology. _Of course_ such kremlinology means that every statement by an ftp team member is examined closely - perhaps more closely than it can bear. The solution is not to clam up even further; it is to relax and make more individual contributions. So: > I'm going to violate this rule slightly Thank you very much for violating your rule and please would you - and other ftp team members - violate it some more :-). > I intend to work within the FTP Team to get some clarification on > the team's position on this, but I don't expect it to be quick. I > agree we could do with better documentation of what the policy is > and why. Thanks. Ian. (Disclosure: I'm one of the ftp trainees mentioned. I have not really done any ftp review work yet because it's December, so please don't think I have much inside insight.) -- Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
