Re: Policy about policy
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
Raul> On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 03:07:48PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > In the wake of the 22.214.171.124 release of debian policy, I've been studying
>> > the policy process.
Raul> Yet I was under the impression that the policy group had, in the past,
Raul> gone out and solicited the opinions of developers. [Emacsen issues
Raul> come to mind.]
That is not how it worked, Some people, the emacsen
developers, went out and created a sub policy document on their own,
and worked out the kinks. Once the process stabilized, a proposal was
made to adopt that as a policy document (not all the emacsen packages
conformed at the time, if I recall correctly).
Raul> Now, I agree that this should be a "best effort" sort of thing -- it's
Raul> silly to wait around for a developer who hasn't been heard of for quite
Raul> some time.
Raul> Also, I have about 12 meg of debian-policy archives to digest before I can
Raul> say anything definitive about existing practice. I'm under the impression
Raul> that asking for developer participation has been a successful action of
Raul> the policy group -- but at the moment, that's all it is: an impression.
Why are you coming in to this forum, and fixing things that do
not seem to be broken? Are you acting in your capaciry as an
individual developer (in which case my advice would be to lurk in
this group and see how wee function, rather than jumping in and
trying to change everything), or are you here as the chairman of the
technical committee, in which case I think that the ctte ahs not been
asked to redesign how this group functions.
Raul> Mostly, I don't want to operate in the dark: proposing random
Raul> constitutional ammendments isn't going to make me feel any easier.
Actualy, I agree: If a constituitonal amendment be the way to
go for ratifying the policy group, I would much rather some one with
more experience in the way the policy group works formulate the
Raul> Once again, right now I'm just trying to make sense of things
Raul> and I do not want to propose any changes to anything
Good. I do believe that you should work through a few
proposals before you try and change anything.
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as
science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to
invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's
history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their
unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the
assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their
reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of
context to characterize the ideas of their opponents." Stephen Jay
Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer, Winter
87/88, pg. 186
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E