On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:38:50PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Maybe discussion was the wrong word. What I mean is that for more than > one year, any vote on this bug was prevented by the TC waiting for any > one of its members to catch up on the discussion, articulate his > concerns, write down a counter-proposal or refine their own > proposal. What I'm saying is that here the perfect is the enemy of the > good. You could have held a vote with three options (conses achieved + > override Bill, consenus not achieved + agree with Bill, further > discussion) within days of receiving this bug, and most likely would > have been able to resolve it. Maybe I would have been overruled, but given those three options I would always have voted "further discussion". As we discussed early on in the TC deliberations, neither of these options makes for good policy. A policy document telling maintainers "there are two menu systems, pick whichever one you want" is bad policy. A policy document telling maintainers to continue using a menu system that's been superseded by events in the larger Free Software ecosystem is bad policy. The Technical Committee is never going to be a great way to write policy because of the process involved, but the preferred method of using debian-policy@lists for this didn't work either in this case. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature