Re: Policy Process (was: Bug #89867: Where to place web-accessible images)
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Matthew> personally am particularly interested in #89867, which has
> Matthew> been turned into an amendment, but hasn't had any sort of
> Matthew> discussion or acceptance.
>
> Since the web browsers have not implemented the requisite
> changes, this proposal is unlikely to be accepted unil they do.
Browsers? Have I gone completely nuts, or was this proposal to get web
servers to export a new directory hierarchy, /usr/share/images/, as
http://localhost/images/? OK, I can see why it might be an issue - it would
probably be nice to be able to access images from places other than
localhost.
But it's still not a *browser* issue, surely?
> Matthew> I for one would like to see the amendment part of policy,
> Matthew> and see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.
>
> Because any package which follows the proposal would be buggy,
> since those images shall not actually be accessible.
Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some other criteria?
Also, I've noticed recent discussion on teams that are seriously short of
manpower, and -policy editors was one of the groups that came up. Would you
and Julian like more help? I'm not exactly a policy lawyer (might be an
advantage <g>) but I'm keen to help, since I think that a tight,
well-written, and up-to-date policy is a necessity for a large, diverse
community like Debian. Not a big stick to beat people with (after all, this
is fun we're dealing with here) but rather something that people can look to
for a definitive answer.
Perhaps you guys are coping fine, but I have noticed a rather... spurtish
(is that the word?) trend in policy lately. Would more editorial staff help
that?
--
Matthew Palmer, Debian Developer
mpalmer@debian.org http://www.debian.org
Reply to: