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

Re: Intent to package: debian-keyring



Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

Dale> On 20 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Well, to take a different tack, what is the point of a policy
>> document at all when anyone can say "well, my package is an
>> exception and need not comply to policy."?  If one may take that
>> stance, I see no point in having a policy document in the first
>> place.

Dale> To take the same tack, what is the point of a policy document
Dale> that is so rigid that noone can say "My package needs an
Dale> exception to this policy."? If one may take this stance, I see
Dale> no point in trying to build a distribution in the first place.

	OOOooooh, Some thing I can agree with ;-) The policy can never
 be rigid; it is up to the policy to conform to correct
 behaviour. There should be well defined processes to initiate a
 change in policy (I thought such procedures already exist). 

	The difference here is that one has to convince a number of
 other people (generally, the people interested in policy hang out in
 debian-policy); so it means that one may not arbitarily decide that
 they shall ship a package that is non-free into main since their
 package is an exception to the DFSG. I think discussion on something
 as important as the policy document is not undesirable. 

	It also means that a lone developer can't shanghai policy
 ;-). If the policy manager gets too rigid, the developers can impeach
 him/her 9if we ratify the constituition).

	Policy can never become a rigid unchanging document; and any
 flaws or exceptions should be included in the policy as soon as
 possible. 

	I do not think that the solution to a flaw in the policy
 should be to ignore policy. I think the solution should be to fix
 policy.

	Oh, when I say policy, I mean the loose heirarchy of documents
 that constitute the rules by which we construct packages (including
 the DFSG, the www standard, the emacsen policy, etc)

	manoj
-- 
 If a person (a) is poorly, (b) receives treatment intended to make
 him better, and (c) gets better, then no power of reasoning known to
 medical science can convince him that it may not have been the
 treatment that restored his health. Sir Peter Medawar, The Art of the
 Soluble
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: