incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <>
Subject veto - oops
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:58:39 GMT
I recently wrote:
 > The second bold bit is just wrong, at least in my village of of Apache
 > land.

That's wrong.

 > In HTTPD we have a convention that if you veto you have
 > responsibility to work to resolve the issue, otherwise - get out of 
 > way.  Again there is plenty of wiggle room around that convention and 
 > suspect there is a much higher statement of the convention someplace.

That's right.

Since force(convention) < force(rule).

This has become an convention only because we have tended to have some 
baseline of politeness, and it's arguable that force(polite) < 

I prefer to reside in the land were quantity(polite) is high and 
quantity(rule) is low.

Thanks to those who brought this mistake to my attention.

Sam's question: does the paragraph in question "do no harm" is still an 
interesting one.  At this point I'm not sure if we have ever had a rule 
- i.e. something written down that people adopting the role of umpire 
could point at and say "see - look! that's the rule!"  About what 
responsibilities come with a veto.  We may well have only had 
politeness or convention.  If that's correct making up such rules would 
be going outside our brief.

It's a subtle distinction, but I think an important one.  This effort 
should attempt to say "It's been noticed that most of the time we do 
X." rather than "We have a rule that you do X."  That gets you most of 
the value of behavior X - and helps new players to know that X is a 
useful design pattern - without running the risk that once in a blue 
moon X is a very bad idea.

  - ben

View raw message