Hi, >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things >> similar. So, we have officially accepted and ratified the Policy >> documents, I take it, and I just missed the party? >> >> If the project has indeed ``adopted'' the Policy documents, I have >> nothing further to say. I just wish you guys had brought this up >> when people were fighting the Policy tooth and nail. >> >> If we have not adopted policy, then quoting the lexicon is a >> meaningless play on words; and even though they be named policy, >> they are evidently not. >> >> Which is it? (can't have it both ways, folks). Philip> Are you suggesting that we should interpret the meaning of the Philip> policy differently depending upon whether it has been adopted Philip> by the project ? Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the policy documents differently? no, but the significance of the policy documents definitely shall change. Philip> If that is the case, we can never adopt it, since the act of Philip> adoption would (according to you) change it's meaning, and Philip> therefore it would no longer be the document we decided to Philip> adopt. That is not what I said. I said we cannot in all honesty call something policy unless it has been adopted by the project; so I am objecting to the NAME of the ``policy'' docuents. Unless you aver that indeed, the project has adopted policy. Philip> I would also say that there is no need to adopt it in any Philip> formal way, since the constructive thing to do is to follow it Philip> where appropriate, and fix it otherwise --- what other use Philip> would we have for a policy document ? If we all actually agree to this, then that would be tantamount to adopting policy. Philip> Regardless of any adoption of policy, I will still reserve the Philip> right to apply my judgement to the way I construct packages, Philip> and I would hope you would too. Philip> Are you suggesting that you would do something destructive if Philip> it were allowed by policy ? No, Assuming I knew better. We are supposed to generally treat policy as correct, and as wisdom handed down by technically competent people. There are lots if people who would follow something blindly. Philip> Do we really have to close all loopholes, Yes. Philip> or can we rely on one another to be reasonable and Philip> constructive, without needing a watertight policy with which Philip> to cudgel one another ? Philip> so why start writing rules with a sub-text of ``you developers Philip> are a bunch of untrustworthy skumbags'', when we can rely on Philip> one another to be reasonable instead ? Having an ANSI C standard does not mean us C programmers are, and I quote, "a bunch of untrustworthy skumbags:, unquote. This line of argument is puerile. Philip> If you treat people like children, they will tend to act like Philip> them. Let's decide to be adult about this instead. I am glad ISO does not listen to you. manoj -- Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]