Re: please vote...
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
Dale> Why are we voting on a proposal that has not yet been accepted by the
Oh, so we have procedures and protocols now? When I was asking
about exactly this last week, I got buried in cries of we don't need
nothing, just send a mail message to start things. Well, a request
was made, a proposal presented, and we have a week to decide. That is
what the constituiotn states.
Dale> As one of the two proposed candidates for the chair of this committee, I
Dale> would point out several points:
Actually, all memmbers are proposed chairs. You are merely one
of two who got a vote. And until you are elcted, and possibly even
then, I don't think it gives you any special voice in a technocal
Dale> As noted in my reply to the original request, the alternative
Dale> channels for correcting this screw-up have not been exercised.
Point out where it says the alternative channels have to be
exercised. I must have missed it in readin the constituion, and we
did, after all, decide we did not need any special procedures.
Dale> There is only one proposal before the committee, not the minimum of two
Dale> required to make a choice. (Yes, I read the proposal, but I submit that
Dale> since Manoj has already voiced his "vote" for the symlinks proposal, that
Dale> he is not an unbiased author for the section on "do nothing" ;-)
That, sir, is an insult. Having an opinion does not prevent me
from attempting a unbiased rpesentation of alternatives.
Dale> The current "problem" has been caused by a recent policy decission that
Dale> was malformed. "Thou shalt be FHS compliant" is not, and never should be
Dale> considered, an adequate policy statement. I suggest that the policy group
Dale> remove such statements, and replace them with "In order to become
Dale> compliant with XXX, developers will need to impliment the following
Dale> proceedures ...
Are you trying to make this committee make an advisory
statement like that?
Dale> Neither side of the current debate has thought out the reasons, or the
Dale> concequences of their proposed actions:
Dale> 1. Symlinks: There seem to be two reasons for the "need" for symlinks:
Dale> a. Least surprise to users looking for docs
Dale> b. Without it things break
You have missed the point. It is not ``least surprise'', it is
that the documentation would not be present in any one location
during the transition (potato is likely to be released in that
period). The symlinks make it possible to point the users first to
/usr/doc, as they are used to, and to /use/share/doc, when the
transition is over.
Dale> 2. Do Nothing: While not well represented, seem to be strong enough to
Dale> block the symlink proposal.
Dale> a. Is there really a problem?
Yes. A user visible lack of a single point to find
documentation of packages has been judeged to be a serious problem.
Dale> b. What breaks?
Dale> As no one actually representing 2 has spoken to this committee,
Dale> I must act in that reguard and try to deal with the obvious:
Since the rest of your analysis is based on faulty
presumptions, I shall not bother replying to it here. If, after
recognizing the actual problem we are trying to solve, you still have
objections, bring tham back up.
Your opinions about the policy group, while amusing, have no
real bearing on the request before the committee. Should you feel the
need to vent your dissatisfaction with the incompetence of the polciy
list, please take it to personal email, or to the list itself.
Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and
they had towels from my house. Mark Guido
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