Bug#741573: Two menu systems

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:

    Didier> I think this is allowed by the patch pointed by Charles,
    Didier> which adds the following paragraph to the policy:

    >> Packages can, to be compatible with Debian additions to some
    >> window managers that do not support the FreeDesktop standard,
    >> also provide a <em>Debian menu</em> file, following the
    >> <em>Debian menu policy</em>, which can be found in the
    >> <tt>menu-policy</tt> files in the <tt>debian-policy</tt> package.
    >> It is also available from the Debian web mirrors at <tt><url
    >> name="/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/"
    >> id="http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/menu-policy/";></tt>.

Hi.
Thanks for bringing this issue back to the question that was brought to
the TC.

The discussion so far on this bug has focused on discussing what the
right  menu policy is for Debian.

That, however was not the question that was brought to the TC.

As I understand it, the claim was made that a consensus was reached
through the normal process and that one of the maintainers reverted
changes consistent with that consensus because he questioned whether the
consensus call was correct.

I appreciate that deciding menu policy is within the scope of the TC,
and if the TC finds that there is no consensus, it seems entirely
reasonable for the TC to choose to create such a policy.

However, I'm disappointed when I see TC members diving into the
technical details in this instance.  I hope that the TC would respect
the broader decision making within the project, would support the idea
that if a broader decision can be reached, that iit is valuable to
support that.  If there is a broader consensus based on the discussion
within the policy process I'd hope that TC members would be very
reluctant to re-open that even if the decision reached is not the one
they are most in favor of.

There's a significant cost to being involved in a consensus process that
doesn't reach a conclusion.  I'd hope that the TC members would choose
to respect the time and energy of all those who participated rather than
taking everything on themselves.

So, I'd like to request the TC to first consider whether a consensus was
reached in the process and if so whether there's a compelling reason not
to respect that consensus.  If no consensus was reached or the TC finds
it has a compelling  interest not to respect that consensus, then
focusing on the technical details of the policy seems reasonable.
In my opinion, not respecting the project as a whole enough to make a
determination about consensus does significant harm.

Respectfully,

Sam Hartman