Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:38:54 -0800:
> In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. What we want to create are > basic philosophies to guide us. Nailing down a million tiny details is > what makes things not fun, and what makes them impossible to learn. > We're not trying to write a specification here, we're trying to come up > with a set of guidelines that people could actually learn and remember. OK, so you are deliberately going for the "big brush strokes" general guideline approach, and don't /want/ the policy getting into details. I can respect that and will need to go back and reread the discussion to date with that in mind. Meanwhile, you still sidestepped the other question. Maybe it's getting too detailed also, but if so, directly saying so to that point would be nice, and if you just missed it, maybe this'll bring it to point: Something must have motivated you to present this now. What was it, or to put it a different way, how would have things been different in your view had this policy been in effect? Point to other examples as well if you believe they'll help clarify the effect you intend this policy to have. (BTW, I'm mailing you directly related to this as well.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
