Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
I'm not sure why we need both a set of commitments and a
policy; it
seems the later could be written to cover the actionable
commitments?
I'd prefer having just a policy, for clarity and simplicity.
The commitments set a general direction for the project.
The policy determines what contributions are acceptable.
I wasn’t entirely sure whether that split was needed, but I felt
like
they are on different levels: the policy is directly applicable
rules
that one can look at when assessing contributions, and the
commitments
says where we’re going today as a project.
I follow this rationale, but perhaps one minor wording change
would underscore the distinction. Currently the "Committments" and
"Policy" section headings use words that are broad (and
potentially overlapping, in some interpretations), but then the
first sentence in each section narrows the scope to be more
consistent with your explanation. What if the headings were
changed to "Project Committments" and "Policy for Contributions"?
Jason
