Hi, >>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 01:49:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava Mark> wrote: >> I understand that one may want a little more leeway than say the >> policy documents are writ in stone (I personally prefer that), but >> to deny that and make no mention of any mechanism of enforcement of >> policy is disquieting. Mark> Ian didn't mention an enforcement policy, because that is Mark> already clearly mentioned in the constitution---the technical Mark> committee. Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the law, and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down interpretations (which are referred to latter as and adjunct to prior law). I still find the wording confusing. "All that policy can say is whether something conforms to or does not conform to policy". And while we are picking nits, there is not statement anywhere that policy ought to (should) be followed (is that not an oxymoron?). I am not required to follow it, and yet it is authoritative to bug filers; I an see a lot of contention developing there. (and again, the tech committee is brought in.) I guess I mistrust an unknown set of powers-that-be rather more than a known quantity. [I am aware this is irrational]. manoj who likes the quiet certitude of the ISO standards -- "It turned out that the worm exploited three or four different holes in the system. From this, and the fact that we were able to capture and examine some of the source code, we realized that we were dealing with someone very sharp, probably not someone here on campus." Dr. Richard LeBlanc, associate professor of ICS, quoted in "The Technique," Georgia Tech's newspaper, after the computer worm hit the Internet Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]