Re: Policy mailing lists
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dale writes:
> > My point is that this situation tends to ignore the effected maintainer
> > who has too much to do to get involved in "all" policy decissions.
> > It has come clear to me that I _must_ subscribe to debian-policy if I can
> > ever hope to keep up with the flow of things. This completely defeats the
> > primary reason for splitting the lists. I'm not so sure that I "need" to
> > be involved in crafting policy. I am pretty sure that I need a better way
> > to keep track of the ebb and flow of said policy.
> Are you complaining that
> (a) you didn't know about the imminent nature of this policy and would
> have wanted to add your input during its formation ? In this case I'd
> say that it's reasonable to ask you to subscribe to debian-policy.
> (b) you didn't know about the policy when it was made and added to the
> policy manual ? It seems to me that this might well be a justified
Although both a and b are problems for me, b is the one that bothers me
the most. (I can solve a on my own)
It appears that I am not betting the policy reports (just like I don't get
the bug reports addressed to me) so I have started a dialog with my ISP to
see if we can't figure out what is happening.
> I don't think it's reasonable to ask maintainers to read the weekly
> policy `digest' messages on debian-devel closely for them to find new
> Surely this is what we have debian-devel-announce and/or the bug
> system for ?
I really don't have a problem with either debian-devel-announce, or the
weekly policy digest. I just need to actually "get" the notification.
> Can I suggest that in future a nontrivial change in policy should be
> * in debian-devel-announce if it affects more than just a few
> * via <package>@packages.debian.org or the bug system if it affects
> only a few
This one would be more specific and firmly resolve my personal problems.
> so that maintainers don't so easily miss these things.
> Such messages should contain a postscript saying that the policy has
> now been decided on and that if you wish the rationale explained you
> should go and read the mailing list archives; only objections and
> considerations not covered in that debate, or changes of
> circumstances, should usually cause a debate to be reopened.
Sounds good to me.
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .