Sergey Spiridonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is not only one-way. DFSG itself should be updated if it becomes > out of date.
Then lets hear it. What do you propose? It should be clear by now that most folks here, at best, don't understand your position well enough to help you draft such a proposal. If you think there's a problem, let's hear your fix. Feel free to get help from anyone who seems to agree with you. Take your time, write it up, nail down all the details you can, and then come back and let us see it. If you think we need a separate set of documentation guidelines, write them up. Don't forget to describe the process for deciding which set of guidelines to apply. That will give us a chance to discuss the issue based on a concrete understanding of the issue, as you see it -- which we currently, in my opinion, don't in the least have. There's no point to the flaming going on. If we continue on the current track, all that's going to happen is that we'll eventually exhaust our interest in discussing it with you -- which isn't really in your best interest, or ours. As things currently stand, I see no possible way for the discussion to be productive. If you want a productive discussion, it's up to you to do your part. In other words, "put up or shut up". -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
