Re: /var/lib, /var/mail
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection
> clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on
> this, no effort to seek a compromise, just a flat, uncompromising
> ultimatum that shall kill any move on this matter just because you
> disagree.
I was not aware that a formal objection is a veto (let's face it, the
policy guidelines are poorly worded, as they read like a proposal,
with "perhaps we should"'s everywhere and with little structure to
help digesting the thing). I agree such a clause is bad. I was more
thinking of the "dissenting opinion" convention used in formal meetings,
where the record will show that I was against such a move, should the
motion pass anyway.
My position on the original matter is unchanged. Things one must not
do must not be sanctioned by policy: I must be able to trust the policy
documents to be an accurate description of what I can and should do.
I will not veto a violation of this principle but I will be demanding
that my dissenting opinion be entered into whatever records we keep on
Policy amendments.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
(Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
Reply to: