Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
Guy> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
>> I don't see how this conflicts with the proposed
>> constitution. Please give me more info on that.
Guy> The constitution places no limitations on the developer's
Guy> authority with regard to their own work. Your version says that
Guy> the maintainers must follow policy.
Is that such a bad thing, really? I would rather that the
policy documents be corrected, and held as a set of rules htat
have to be followed, woth an exception for the items that happen to
be in flux (and that means actively debateed at large, not just in
the developers mind). The technical committee can then be called
upon to interpret this document, and maybe amend it, if needed.
I prefer the codification of rules that have to be followed
and putting them out in the open, rather than continuing to depend on
the judgement of a few good people in perpetuity. Some have called my
view fascist.
Codification of laws and rules is not fascism; on the
contrary, it has served the masses more often than now. (Tha Magna
Carta, and various and sundry constitutions around the world). It all
started with Hammurabi codifying the laws, and limiting the power of
the technical committee (I mean, the kings).
In the east, especially in china, the tendency was to
institute a rigorous process of selection of people who would be the
mandarins (judges), and trusting to their judgement for justice. In
time, the process fell into decay, as it could always be influenced,
a little at a time, by people in power, and with patience and
influencing the promotions of like minded or corrupt officials, the
system decayed into one fraught with nepotism and old boy networks.
I do not think having laws that are written down and not
subject to the change on the whim of the president (imagine a
presidential amendment saying the president can not legally sexually
harrass anyone?) or any other power that be is a good thing.
I do not think this is fascist. And I do think this would be a
welcome and open restriction on the powers of the technical committee
(well,, in my opinion, certainly).
manoj
--
"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought."
Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night")
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: