Re: Policy Process (was: Bug #89867: Where to place web-accessible images)

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>]

>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:

 Matthew> Policy process section 3.4 doesn't seem to make any mention
 Matthew> of how a proposed amendment gets accepted or rejected.  I

	Well, rough consensus is one criteria. Not making a
 ``significant'' number of packages instantly buggy is another.
 Getting things to work first, ironing out all the kinks, and then
 coming up with the policy proposal also helps.

 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.

 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.

	manoj
-- 
 Creating computer software is always a demanding and painstaking
 process -- an exercise in logic, clear expression, and almost
 fanatical attention to detail.  It requires intelligence, dedication,
 and an enormous amount of hard work.  But, a certain amount of
 unpredictable and often unrepeatable inspiration is what usually
 makes the difference between adequacy and excellence.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C