Re: Regrets for Tomorrow's Meeting
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I hope I've been more clear in my communication about the menu policy
> bug. I'd really like to see us call for any objections to the proposal
> on debian-policy and amongst ourselves prior to voting.
Right; I expect anyone who has objections to Charles or Bill's proposals
to raise objections to them once our draft is announced and before we
vote. I was planning on just announcing it on -ctte and -policy, but
feel free to spread it wider.
> My suspicion is that based on my review, we have fairly strong
> evidence that the policy process did reach consensus.
>
> The big question seems to be whether the issue of displaying all
> applications on XDG menus vs only those that are desirable in a
> desktop environment was adequately considered. If we believe that it
> was adequately considered and that the sense of the list is reflected
> in the proposal, then I believe the policy process actually did reach
> rough consensus under their process.
>
> If they did reach rough consensus I'd strongly prefer that we adopt
> Charles proposal unless specific objections are raised during our
> process.
OK. So assuming this is the case, does option B in the draft now
represent your view? Or is option A sufficient?
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
You think to yourself, hey, it's a test tube, for God's sake. Pretty
soon, though, the rush from a test tube isn't enough. You want to
experiment more and more. Then before you know it, you're laying in
the corner of a lab somewhere with a Soxhlet apparatus in one hand,
a three neck flask in the other, strung out and begging for grant
money.
-- Tim Mitchell, 1994 Ig Nobel Chemistry Prize Speech
Reply to: