Bug#741573: Requesting input on TC deliberations about menu system and policy
Dear Charles,
Last Thursday, the TC met. As part of that meeting we discussed
#741573. See the logs at
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2015/debian-ctte.2015-03-26-18.59.log.html
.
Currently the plan is that Keith is going to propose some text within
the policy process that he believes might be a reasonable way forward.
You'd expressed some concern about the approach the TC is taking and we
were hoping to seek your input on where you think we are and on whether
we're moving forward in a reasonable way.
Speaking only for myself, it seems to me that there are a couple of
challenges that make it somewhat difficult to address the question of
whether the process was followed directly.
Steve claimed that the policy process is not a rough consensus process
and that the fact that Bill objected in-and-of-itself might be
sufficient to argue that there was not consensus.
The process.txt document dated Spetember 14, 2014 does not support
Steve's claim. I have not read previous versions of that document, and
I don't know which version of the process the TC should look at here.
Secondly, we've seen some argument within the TC that the policy
proposal might be technically flawed. While I don't think we want to
second guess the process, at the end of the day we(the TC) have to be
comfortable with our technical policy. I'd hope that if someone takes a
technically valid approach different than the one we would take, we'd
support the people doing the work taking the approach they favor.
However, if a valid process reaches a conclusion we think has
significant technical flaws, I would not ebxpect us to agree with that.
I haven't yet seen an explanation of the technical flaw that may exist
in the original policy proposal.
I think we'd rather see something everyone is happy with than have a
fight about process, but there does seem to be a number of people on the
TC who care strongly about respecting the work done within the
debian-policy list.
We'd really appreciate your input on where this stands and thoughts
about our current approach.
--Sam
Reply to: