Web lists-archives.com

Re: Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16




>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Ian> Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to
    Ian> conduct this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever.  Thank you.

Thanks.
I'm really hoping it does end up working well and that we can train many
people to do it.

    Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or
    Ian> Recommend DH; comments by 2019-06-16"):
    >> Recommendation ==============
    >> 
    >> There are some exceptions where we think using dh is the wrong
    >> choice; see below.  We have a strong consensus that other than in
    >> exceptional circumstances, new packages should use dh.

    Ian> I would use the word "unusual" rather than the word
    Ian> "exceptional".  Legalistically they have nearly the same
    Ian> meaning, but they convey a difference of emphasis: a difference
    Ian> in how strong a reason is good enough for not using dh; or, in
    Ian> what proportion of exceptions we are expecting.


    Ian> I haven't systematically reread the thread as you have, but my
    Ian> impression is that we have a "strong consensus" as you put it
    Ian> that dh should be used unless there is "some reasonable reason"
    Ian> not to.

I actually like the wording of "some reasonable reason".  I'll see if I
can work that in rather than exceptional or unusual.  I agree with the
change in emphasis you're trying to make, but at least on this side of
the pond, I'm not actually sure unusual connotes more common than
exceptional.  I suspect the real place where this matters is how it gets
written up in policy.

    Ian> I don't think we have "strong consensus" that these exceptions
    Ian> are going to be rare.  "Exceptional" conveys both that there is
    Ian> some reason, but also an expectation of rarity.

The Haskell exception for example will not be rare at all in that part
of the archive.