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

Re: Technical committee mails ?

On 18 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Hi,
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>  Ian> I propose the following resolution:
>         I object, on the grounds that it far exceeds what we have been
>  asked to do in this instance. Policy creation mechanisms inplace can
>  handle the rest of the FHS transition quite well, without us poking
>  our nose where it is not wanted. 

Hold on Manoj. Nobody is "poking our nose where it is not wanted".

You came to the committee with a problem. By our constitution, you will be
forced to accept whatever this committee decides, and without Ian's
proposal we have no reasonable path to a decission. Your take it or leave
it proposal is unacceptable, not because it may not be the right thing to
do, but because there has been no alternative presented, asside from
simply saying no to your proposal, which is equally indecisive.

You continue to insist that this fiasco has nothing to do with the current
policy about FHS, while I have previously argued that it has everything to
do with it, and Ian's proposal suggests that he agrees with me. While I am
always willing to admit to being an idiot, I know Ian well enough to know
that he is far from idiotic. I have previously submitted that the policy
group put the cart before the horse by passing the current policy about
the FHS before detailing how the changes from current policy would be
accomplished. Your refusal to accept this idea doesn't convice me that you
are right and I am wrong.

Before you get totally frustrated with "process" and throw up your hands
in disgust, do whatever calms you, and try to get some perspective on what
is going on.

You have insisted that policy is correct to require FHS compliance and
that no "details" are required to make this assertion, as the FHS itself
provides the details. I say bunk. The FHS says how things _will_ be under
the standard, and while it may give rational for the changes from previous
standards, there are no "details" about just how the transition should be
made. If there were, you would not be here trying to gain acceptance for
your proposed "details", they would be spelled out chaper and verse in the
FHS, and could simply be sited.

>         Shall we stick to the topic at hand, then, and not go and try
>  and take on a transitiohn where the peoiple in charge have asked for
>  no help?

But you _have_ asked for help. You can't simply say, well I only want help
if it comes to me in a specific form.

Ian's proposal _is_ a fix for the current problem. I realise it isn't what
you think is the right thing to do, but that's life. "You can't always get
what you want"(RS).

I believe I have made myself pretty clear hear, so, although I will not
comment on the rest of your gripes directly, I feel that they all fall
into the same catagory as the previous commented sections. I _don't_ agree
with much of what you said later in your posting.

Sorry this doesn't meet with your approval, but I hope you can be adult
about it and not simply throw a tantrum.

Waiting is,

_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: