Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> (2015-07-18): > >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> writes: > > Bill> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:08:04PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> In March of 2014, Charles Plessy asked the Debian Technical > >> Committee to review one of the policy editors decisions to revert > >> changes to how policy talks about the Debian Menu and MIME > >> support. See http://bugs.debian.org/741573 for the TC process > >> and https://bugs.debian.org/707851. for the process within > >> debian-policy. > >> > >> One of the issues is the question of whether the Debian Policy > >> community reached consensus around the proposal. I've > >> investigated this question as part of trying to understand how I > >> will vote within the TC process. > > Bill> I want to point out that I have split the menu policy changes > Bill> in 3 parts, so that the less controversial part could be > Bill> decided separately, see #742532. However nobody was > Bill> interested in seconding this. So I am let to believe there is > Bill> no actual consensus on this. > > I agree that there doesn't seem to be consensus on your proposed split. > > I don't think I can infer anything about the overall proposal's support > from lack of support for the split. As an example, if I had high > confidence that I could get consensus on the entire proposal, I would > not generally support handling the less contraversial parts first. > > If you handle the less-controversial parts first, it's easy to get into > a situation where that's all you solve. When you do that because you > honestly can't get consensus on more than the less-controversial parts, > the process is working. However, sometimes those sort of splits can > create dynamics where you get less of a solution than you might hope. Well, trying to split topics, menu policy changes, or hairs, seems (at least to me) to be the new trick of the day to cover up the inexcusable behaviour that Charles described when he opened up this very bug report. Wasting people's hard work, and then using a lack of reply to an extra round of nitpicking as an excuse for having wasted the whole lot? Shame on you, Bill. KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature