From dan@langille.org  Tue Mar 13 19:47:34 2001
Return-Path: <dan@langille.org>
Received: from ns1.unixathome.org (ns1.unixathome.org [203.79.82.27])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5637237B719; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 19:47:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dan@langille.org)
Received: from wocker (dan@wocker.int.nz.freebsd.org [192.168.0.99])
	by ns1.unixathome.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f2E3lU209580;
	Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:47:31 +1300 (NZDT)
	(envelope-from dan@langille.org)
Message-Id: <200103140347.f2E3lU209580@ns1.unixathome.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:47:29 +1300
From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org>
Reply-To: dan@langille.org
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net>,
	<freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>, Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010313215630.R25904-100000@blues.jpj.net>
Subject: Re: doc/25783

>Number:         25790
>Category:       docs
>Synopsis:       Re: doc/25783
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    freebsd-doc
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Mar 13 19:50:01 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:    Thu Apr 5 07:13:03 PDT 2001
>Last-Modified:  Tue Nov 27 18:35:13 PST 2001
>Originator:     
>Release:        
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
 On 13 Mar 2001, at 22:23, Trevor Johnson wrote:
 
 > > Hmm, the only thing I see with this (the patch looks ok) is that the
 > > rules in the CG were actually a list of rules that were drafted by
 > > -core and voted on by the committers about a year or so ago.  I'm not
 > > sure one can just add new rules out of the blue, but then again there
 > > is no provision for what to do with proposed changes to the rules.
 > > Nik?
 
 Thanks John.  I'm glad for the support.
 
 On the topic of new rules: if there is no procedure, I'm happy to be the 
 one to prompt the establishment of one.  If the old rules were voted 
 upon, I'd be interested, if only in a academic sense, to see whether or 
 not the committers would vote to include the proposal in addition to [and 
 not instead of one of] the existing rules.  It would be interesting to see 
 and argument against including this as a rule.
 
 And I take your point that it shouldn't need to be explicit.  Rules exist 
 for those that adhere to them and so they can beat upon those that 
 don't.
 
 > Perhaps this could be added under "Other Suggestions" with a note that it
 > was originally requested as a rule.
 
 My preference is to see it as a rule, despite it making it an uneven 11 
 rules instead of a nice round 10.  Making it a suggestion is second 
 best, but it is a start.
 
 cheers
 
 -- 
 Dan Langille
 pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php
 got any work?  I'm looking for some.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: gnats-admin->freebsd-doc 
Responsible-Changed-By: phk 
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 4 00:46:18 PDT 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
over to doc 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25790 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: nik 
State-Changed-When: Thu Apr 5 07:13:03 PDT 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  
Changes committed. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25790 
>Unformatted:
