incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Hyde <>
Subject Re: do no harm
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2002 01:06:45 GMT

On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:31 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Ben Hyde wrote:
> >
> > These, and others, can do a lot of damage.  If you take someplace
> > where things are fuzzy for a good reason and force them to be clear
> > all your doing is naively forcing a choice where the system has
> > already discovered that there isn't an obvious good choice.  This can
> > be way harmful!
> Ben,
> Do the bold words in the second paragraph of the proposed text for 
> "Implications of Voting" at 
> meet your 
> criteria for "do no harm"?

That entire document was part of what triggered my note.  It certainly
is a working draft isn't it?  I loved that!  I loved the way the 
reflected how diverse actual practice is around here.  It also made me 
wonder if it might be better to try to just capture the conventions of 
one community.

The first bold bit "and" might be what I was worried about, if it is 
stating as a definitive rule something that might just be a social 
convention with a vast band of wiggle room or worse just something the 
author thought would make a good rule.

The second bold bit is just wrong, at least in my village of of Apache
land.  In HTTPD we have a convention that if you veto you have a 
responsibility to work to resolve the issue, otherwise - get out of the 
way.  Again there is plenty of wiggle room around that convention and I 
suspect there is a much higher statement of the convention someplace.

"Convention" is a better term from what makes group work than "rule".

View raw message