>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.
