Re: irc summary

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> 
> Don't worry about us getting left behind, Tom.  I came on only a few days
> ago, and Bill just joined us as well.  Besides, we have the excellent
> contributions from the PSG.

Dan, please don't keep trying to call the RSG "PSG".  RSG is the
official title, no matter what you want it to be.  We don't try
to change the anacronym UISG to something _we_ think is better,
e.g. GGUISG.  Using "PSG" only serves to confuse things more than
they need to be (as if anything needs to be more confused,
ahem).  Or should I start calling you "Dran" because I think it
sounds cooler?  (c:  No one will know who I'm talking about.

> >> Can we agree to dump C1 through C5?  It's just *too* confusing, man...
> >
> >is it? you're the first  to say that, if memory serves correctly.
> >
> >go to sleep. maybe it's less confusing afterwards. :)
> 
> OK, OFFICIALLY, does *ANYBODY AT ALL* think it's a good idea to have C2 be
> an abbreviation for Complaince Level 2 for GNOME when in the NT world C2 is
> a rating that Microsoft cheated to get for itself?
> 
> Are you guys SURE we should associate ourselves with a cheated rating,
> especially considering Linux itself will eventually get rated C2 as a whole,
> for *real*?

Try to be more specific.  When you say "dump C1 through C5" it
sounds like you mean dump the entire 5-level compliancy rating
system.  I'm quite sure that's not what you mean.  You want to
call it something different, yet keep the existing meanings of
it, right?

I agree, especially if C2 is already an existing conformance
standard.  I sort of like the Cx convention, because it's quick &
concise (not to mention it was part of my original proposal). 
However, down the line the terminology could become confusing.  I
don't think we should use "Level 1" either, because that is too
generic.  I chose "C" because that makes it easy to remember that
it stands for "compliance".  "Level" gives no inherent indication
of what it's a level of.

I don't have any ideas for a replacement yet.  I'll think about
it.  Anyone else have suggestions?  I sort of like the earlier
suggestion of GC1, GC2...  Can't remember who said that.  There's
always 1C, 2C, 3C...  Eh, not so good.

John