On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 09:41 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This > is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to > 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based > on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its > wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, > not the wording. > > This wording vs. intentions makes this whole thing really ridiculous. It > makes you look like being nitpicking, even if you aren't.
This is pretty much my feelings exactly on many of our policies. We shouldn't *have* to document every single thing that someone can possibly do wrong. We should be able to have a group that can make decisions based on the intent of the original policy. It would also make it quite a bit easier to keep up with the policies if we aren't having to constantly go back and re-read them for all of the changes. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
