On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 01:10 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:42:01 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > > Imho in case there is a renaming of an policy, the cause should be also > > explained in the page. Non-native speakers may not be able to know the > > reasons for such a renaming without it beeing documented. For me 'AWOL' did > > not imply anything negative. > > Robin has tried to explain it. The negative thing about it is that its > commonly used for cases of absence _without permission_. Not just in a > military context. It's used when somebody ought not be away, and being > away would be considered a _breach of duty_. Well, we're not in the military here, but IMO the term AWOL is fitting insofar as you can grant your own leave rather easily by notifying the rest of us about it. Not doing so could be considered a "breach of duty", if you bear in mind that duty here is something different than duty in uniform. I don't really care about what term we use to designate non-responsive maintainers, but it should be "harsh" enough so that people are aware of the consequences of it. Nils -- Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nils@xxxxxxxxxx nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
