Re: please vote...
On 9 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
> Dale> Why are we voting on a proposal that has not yet been accepted by the
> Dale> committee?
> 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.
We also have the power to reject the proposal, or make any requirements we
see fit. That was made just as clear to you during the preliminary
> 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
I was voicing my opinions as a proposed chair. Nothing more.
> 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.
This isn't a special proceedure. This is simply a statement that other
channels are available for resolving this issue and that this committee is
a "last resort", not a dictatorial authority for pushing through policy.
> 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.
I submit that your proposal is self evidently biased. I would judge myself
unable to make reasonable representation for an "opposing" idea as well.
This was not a slur of your skills or morals.
> 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?
No, I was pointing out the flaw in policy that lead to the current
problem. The simple solution is to repair the flawed policy.
> 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.
Sounds like least surprise to me, and it doesn't resolve it, only pospones
it for a future time.
> 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.
Maybe by you, but to me this isn't even a technical problem, much less
serious. A simple documentation solution designating the details of the
change seems to solve this "problem" much easier than a complex symlink
> 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.
Get off your high horse and answer simple questions please.
> 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.
You may find it amusing that this committee has gotten itself into this
mess, I don't. The fact that you seem unwilling to take any responsibility
for the situation puts me in less of a state of mind to try and help you
out of the muck you in which you are currently stuck.
The fact that the policy group is unwilling to support your proposal,
dispite the problems created by the new FHS policy, suggests that the
proposal is flawed. The fact that you are unwilling to present a
reasonable counter proposal leaves the Technical committee with nothing to
deside. We are NOT an instrument for pushing through proposals that do not
pass ordinary creation processes within the group. Our sole reason for
existance is to provide a mechanism for resolving a deadlock between two
opposing positions. You have only proposed one option, leaving the
committee no choice but to reject your request and suggest that you return
to the constitutional means for resolving such questions...a vote.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-