On 17.09.15 05:30, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Alternately, we *know* that the existing language confuses a lot of >> people, and enigmail has an opportunity to drive the language >> regularization process by using a reasonable, clean vocabulary >> itself. > > It sounds a lot like the "something must be done; this is something; > ergo we must do it" fallacy. > > Enigmail is used in a lot of places, and there's an entire community of > trainers who teach it to others. Changing the terminology on them once > is understandable, especially if it fixes problems. Changing it twice > in quick succession seems rude to the trainers, who will have to adapt > their teaching materials, FAQs, manuals, webpages, etc., twice. > >> I don't think that any enigmail development should wait on results >> -- enigmail should help make the results happen. > > I emphatically disagree.
Could we please take this discussion to another, more appropriate place? GnuPG-devel or GnuPG-users appear to be better suited to me. Ludwig
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
