[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: please vote...

>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

 Dale> On 9 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 Dale> What I heard in the proposal was that without the symlinks
 Dale> "things break".  The only "things" that I know of that break
 Dale> are the helper tools and checker programs. If these are "silly
 Dale> reasons", then your argument that things break is silly, unless
 Dale> you can provide evidence of more important breakage.

        User expectation. The user going ls /usr/doc/<package>[TAB]
 breaks. The location is not really that ijmportant, the fact that one
 may need to make two probes to find the docs can get to be
 irritating. And you may think that that is trivial, but a large
 number of people felt it was a quality of implementation issus. 

 Dale> No, this is exactly the kettle of fish you wish to us to stew
 Dale> in. The policy group has made a faulty change to policy, and
 Dale> now you want us to correct that failure by forcing the
 Dale> acceptance of a new policy to fix the old, broken, policy
 Dale> change.

        Rubbish. The move to FHS is not flawed, And since details
 should not go into policy by default, it was perfectly acceptable to
 agree to the move, and then make policy on things that needed it. You
 may disagree with how the pollicy group works, but that does not
 mean other think it so. I certainly do not. 

        And we are not fixing old, broken policy. We are addressing a
 specific sub issue that was not foreseen as needing prior
 discussion. Unless you are god, you do not see all that has to be
 acted on first.

        Now stop being so high and all mighty and let us get to doing
 some work -- something we have failed to do, unlike the policy group
 you like to castigate.

 Dale> A proposal that would be unnecessary if the policy group were
 Dale> acting in a responsible fashion, and making reasonable changes
 Dale> to the policy statements.

        Heh. This is so clueless. The policy group does not make
 policy amendments that are controversial. And expecting any open
 forum not to have controversies on at least some technical aspect is

 Dale> This is not in our mandate. We are NOT a policy making arm of this
 Dale> organization.

        Then read the constitution.And go read the policy list
 archives. The BTS of the policy-list gives all proposals made on the
 issue. There is no requirement that the committee be spoonfed all the
 discussion. The discussion has been carried out, and the policy group
 seems deadlocked. 
      The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
       and policies. Such design work should be carried out by
       individuals privately or together and discussed in ordinary
       technical policy and design forums.
       The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
       adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
       been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
       Individual members of the technical committee may of course
       participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy

 Dale> We are a deadlock resolution mechanism, not a policy dictator.

        The project is indeed deadlocked on this. The only way out is
 a general resolution, and if you contend that is the sole solution,
 then this ctte has no utility. 

 >> Because in the opinion of the majority, and given our track
 >> record, the transition shall not happen in a release interval
 Dale> Were else does it happen? Your statement doesn't reply to my comments.

        We shall have to release potato in a transitional state, I
  think, as do a number of others.

 Dale> I have not accurately described the difficulty of the change?
        I think you underestimate the time required to change all
 packages (even if helper packages are changed)

 Dale> It is no more complex than changing /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc in the
 Dale> appropriate locations in my rules files. How hard _is_ that?

        Not hard at all. And, it may take as much as a year to 18
 months to do that. We are no longer small and nimble. o?

 Dale> The constitution does not force us to vote on your proposal. We
 Dale> all agreed during the preliminary discussion that the committee
 Dale> could easily reject any proposal it thought flawed or otherwise
 Dale> improper.

        I guess we can do that. I would not agre, but then it shall
 depend on the silent almost-majority of the ctte. 

 Dale> Either come back with two proposals,
 >> Justify that request. You may have to have the constituion
 >> changed while you are at it.

 Dale> The constitution has nothing to do with this. This committee
 Dale> can make any requirements of the proposers that it deems
 Dale> necessary.

        I see. We can decide to cop out, despite the fact that the
 only way to resolve this otherwise is a vote via the general

        If the ctte so decides, and is so committed to deciding
 technical problems by popular vote, I move that the ctte be dissoolved.

 Dale> The constitution is _very_ clear. This committee WILL NOT DO DESIGN WORK!

        No need to. The proposal has done all the design work required.

 Dale> Wichert, in his proposal asked this committee to do just that. Your
 Dale> proposal has done little to provide us with alternatives.

        I presented one side. The DPL has asked the ctte to work on
 this. Anyone else is welcoime to come up with alternates. I refuse to
 spend time on this.

 Dale> We are being asked to authorise a single proposal against the
 Dale> wishes of the existing body designated to make such
 Dale> decissions.

        This is toital clueless bullshit. Against the bloody wishes?
 You have any idea how the policy list works? 

 Dale> If you want me to support this proposal you are going to have
 Dale> to go quite a bit farther than you have so far at describing
 Dale> the underlying desperate need that requires this committee's
 Dale> involvement in the decission. Calling me stupid just doesn't
 Dale> get it.

        frankly, I don't give a damn. Quality of Debian is important,
 but not this important. The hell with it. Do whatever you guys

 Ships are safe in harbor, but they were never meant to stay there.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: