On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 00:12:57 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:

> > Just to point out, part of, why people are interpreting this as they
> > are: you frame it as a requirement, even a "mandatory requirement",
> > without specifying what recourse, if any, there is if such requirements
> > are not met.   
> 
> I can understand that perspective. I am more of the mindset of not having 
> recourse. I am not a fan of punishment. If projects repeatedly do not do it, 
> oh well. That is their choice, just not encouraged.

I think that's possibly what confused me.

Terms like "Promoted", "Encouraged", "Recommended" are probably closer
to your perspective in that they convey being "Very strong indications that
a thing should be done", instead of "An indication a thing _must_ be done".

Because indicating _must_ does imply definitive actionable consequences for
non-compliance.

Where's the others only imply that somebody might bend your arm and give you
a conversation if compliance is not met.

And then you can term the failure to comply as an opposite:

"Neglecting to report is strongly discouraged"

Whereas if you say "mandatory"/"must", then the opposites are

"must not", and "forbidden"