> "Have a policy" and "have an explicit policy" are two different
> things. In many cases Mozilla has quite succesfully used informal
> policy: writing things down formally only when events show they
> need to be written down. In many cases it's been sufficient to have
> non-normative descriptions of the way things work rather than a
> normative text.
Yes. This. +1. Etc.
> [...]Whatever the policy is, there
> are going to be hard cases near the boundary, many of which the
> policy's authors didn't forsee. Building consensus around a written
> policy requires building consensus that that boundary is in the
> right place.
> In many cases this can be alleviated somewhat by making the policy
> more vague. Which in turn returns to a continuum back from "have an
> explicit policy" towards "have a policy".
Again with the +1/this/RT!
We should have something general enough that it's not trying to
micromanage behavior. But also something specific enough that it's not a
wishy-washy, watered-down policy. (Although even the latter might be a
better starting point than "no policy".)