Realised I only sent this directly to Martin previously: “should" and “must” are very different in the English language in terms of tone and meaning. A quick Google came up with this explanation which is better than what I could come up with:
"A must-do is an unavoidable requirement; a should-do is no more than a desirable goal.” So I understand the original posters sentiment - People read the guidelines and think they don’t have to follow them but should probably take a look at them. It is the same with guideline vs policy. Guideline = should, policy = must. If we do change these terms then we should also note that exceptions can be made but only after discussing on the imports list. You will never cover 100% of cases with policy. Thanks, Glen On 7/11/2013, at 2:16 pm, Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes: > >> Actually it didn't look to me as if you had substantial changes proposed. A >> "should" has IMHO the same implications in this context than a "must", and >> whether this is called "policy" or "guidelines" doesn't seem to change >> anything either, that's why I didn't reply on your first mail. > > I agree with Jason. Perhaps this is a nuance of English words. > > "Guideline" is a suggestion, and you aren't wrong if you choose not to > follow it. If DWG is going to revert for not following a guideline, > then it's policy. > > And should is a strong suggestion, much like guideline, while must > specifies policy. > > So the key question for each guideline/policy is: is it ok for people > not to follow it (if they think there's some reason why not following it > is ok)? For things like document the import, mail to imports@, my sense > is that no, it's not ok. > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
