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

Re: Technical committee mails ?

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

 Dale> 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. 

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

        You broaden the scope of this resolution to include the whole
 FHS move, I assure you we are poking our oses where we are not
 wanted. We have been asked to decide how to do a *part* of the FHS
 move -- and we should stick to answering that.

 Dale> You came to the committee with a problem. By our constitution,
 Dale> you will be forced to accept whatever this committee decides,

        Rubbish. If this committee broadens the scope of the technical
 advice to include the whole FHS move, that resolution shall be
 immediately put on hold. I have more than the 10 people required to
 do so. So get off your omnipotent committee shall decide all there is
 to decide bit. 

        The committee has not been asked to rule on all the FHS
 move. Only a subsection of that.

 Dale> and without Ian's proposal we have no reasonable path to a
 Dale> decission.

        Wrong again. You yourself made a second proposal -- by joey
  hess, I believe.

 Dale> You continue to insist that this fiasco has nothing to do with
 Dale> the current policy about FHS, while I have previously argued
 Dale> that it has everything to do with it, and Ian's proposal
 Dale> suggests that he agrees with me.

        Frankly, I don't care if you think that the policy group, the
 schooll board of kansas, or the US senate are wrong. You have not
 been asked to comment (as the tech ctte -- you have a right to
 indivivual opinions, of course). The rest of the FHS move is going
 over smoothly -- we have a means of handling /var/mail, and other
 issues are being resolved.

 Dale> While I am always willing to admit to being an idiot, I know
 Dale> Ian well enough to know that he is far from idiotic. I have

        He would be the first to admit that he not immune from being
 wrong either -- but that is not relevant.

 Dale> previously submitted that the policy group put the cart before
 Dale> the horse by passing the current policy about the FHS before
 Dale> detailing how the changes from current policy would be
 Dale> accomplished. Your refusal to accept this idea doesn't convice
 Dale> me that you are right and I am wrong.

        Fine. Go to the polocy group and get things changed.        

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

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

        The policy group shall come out with an amended policy that
 fills in more details. The tech ctte has not been invited to resolve
 other issues. You may not like how that body works, but unless there
 is a problem, the tech ctte has no right to butt in.

        Unless you can show me how rolling the other FHS changes back
 helps in resolving the /usr/doc move, I shall remain opposed.

 >> 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?

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

        I can say I only need help in one thing. Just because I ask
 for help on one issue does not mean that the tech ctte comes in and
 takes over evrythig, and one may as well dissolve the policy group.

        Back off.

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

        It is a mad grab for control. At best, I saw: roll back all
 FHS relkated changes, even the oines that have been succesfully
 accomplished, cause we on hihg say you dod not pay homage to the
 right method.

        Poewr corrupts. No way should this ctte have that power.

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


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

        You have not offered one iota of reason why we are rollig back
 succesful changes, and broadening the scope of this action beyond the
 /usr/doc move. 

        Give me a reson why we should be in charge of the whole move,
 when the mechanisms in place seem to be working.

 "This isn't brain surgery; it's just television." David Letterman
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: