I'm the original author of most of the core text in the policy manual (or was, I may not be). When I wrote it I anticipated that people might need to violate the policy in special circumstances, and didn't intend people to take it as a set of absolute rules.
I think that it's valuable to be able to ignore broken policy or to defer implementation of policy-under-discussion, and also valuable to be able to have exceptions (before they're documented, or even which will never be documented). The proposed constitution requires a supermajority from the Technical Committee to overrule a developer, and doesn't make any special exception for things that are definitely policy violations. I think this is a good thing, because it means that if a developer and policy come into conflict the issue will be decided on the merits of the particular case. I think that the fact thats there are sometimes exceptions, and that policy which is under discussion may well be violated in the meantime, should themselves be documented. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the preamble to the policy manual ? Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
