On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 21:25, Christian Lohmaier <lohmaier+mag...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Florian Hubold <doktor5...@arcor.de> wrote: >> Am 12.01.2012 19:01, schrieb Christian Lohmaier: >>>> [..] >> PS: Maybe next time you could improve on your wording, the policy may >> currently be incorrect, not reflecting good packaging practices, but as it's >> only a policy written by humans, it's not dumb. Just a hint. ;) > > No, I disagree. The policy as written is dumb in my opinion. But that > doesn't mean I consider the people who edited the wiki to be dumb. > That is a huge difference in my opinion. If I tell someone "Ugh, > that's an ugly shirt you're wearing today" it is not the same as > telling the person "you are ugly" - but people on this list do get it > that way.
Agreed. Still, let's cut it short and to the point. Can someone rewrite it as it should be then (adding the missing exception if I understood correctly)? By the same time, could the document be written short and straightforward: - start the document with the very policy (at this time, it's in the 3rd sub-section); - write it in a more assertive way (not "should do" but "does"); - all other subsections should be there to explain status, context, roles, etc. > It might be my lack of understanding the English language, but > "stupid" just is a regular word - it is not like I'd be using > something like "moth.*ker" here. Also my thesaurus only lists words > that I consider more harsh (like retarded, brainless,...). You could have said "misleading", "deceptive", "heartbreaking", "disheartening", "expectations breaking", "amusingly inaccurate" or "unusual". The fact is that this policy document starts with a warning that it is a "first pass" - so it may be improved. In short: let's behave a bit more like gentlemen this year, shall we? :)