On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 06:34:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> I'd rather see consensus, and, more specifically, see the > >> soc-ctte spell out the social norms > > > The developer's reference, for example, includes several social > > norms already - anything that isn't a strict technical obligation > > but instead a matter of procedure and/or courtesy. > > But the dev-ref is optional -- last time I read it, I did not > find it very useful tome, and I disagreed with a lot of its dictums, > and so I largely ignore it while building packages; I rely on my > sense of best practices. The tech ctte does not come down on me like > a tonne of bricks for not removing the . from my short descriptions.
The social committee wouldn't do anything of the sort; like Lars said, it could spell out the norms. Coming down on people like a tonne of bricks would be anti-social, which would would go against the very notion of a *social* committee. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]