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

Bug#741573: Menu Systems: Thoughts about Next Steps

Having reviewed the  policy team's process.txt document and having
reviewed Charles's comments, I'm much less sanguine when I think about
the approach for resolving the menu system discussion  that we discussed
last Thursday.

Keith may well have an approach that improves over both the status quo
and the version Russ committed.
However, he can rebase his diff   and propose it against whatever the
policy is when it gets to that point in the process.

I think there's significant value in  actually looking at the process

How would people feel about:

* Someone reads  #707851 to confirm  the facts presented.  In
  particular, confirm the seconds were made.

* We contact those who seconded confirming that by seconding they
  believed both that the proposal was good and that rough consensus was
  reached as described in the current process.txt document.

* We make an explicit call for unresolved  objections  to debian-policy,
  Bill and debian-ctte, giving people a couple of weeks.

* We ask those who seconded to help us understand whether objections
  that are raised were discussed, and if so, what the resolution was
  during the debian-policy discussion.

I get the impression that Steve at least believes that the proposal in
#707851 is not technically sound.  He may have raised that before either
here or in #707851.  At this point I have not read all the bug log for
either this bug or #707851, and it's long enough I probably never will.
Certainly if the TC believes the proposal is unsound that's going to
factor into what we do.

My hope is that an eventual resolution to this issue contains the
following points:

* Encourage Keith any anyone else who has improvements in this space to
  bring them up within the policy process, regardless of where we leave
  this issue.

* States that we expect those raising concerns about consensus to
  clearly articulate the objections they believe are unresolved.  Once a
  proposal has received enough positive interest, we expect those who do
  not articulate concerns and work so that their concerns are understood
  to stand aside rather than blocking the consensus process.  We hope
  the policy editors will hold themselves to the highest standard with
  regard to this point.  (wordsmithing required)

My thoughts about the rest of the resolution will depend on what
objections we find, our evaluation of soundness, etc.

I'd be interested in comments about this approach and peoples' feelings
about whether that's what we should do.

Reply to: