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

RE: Conflicts between developers and policy

>	I have generally found that policy is actually decided by
> discussion on the policy lists, and I do not agree with your
> characterization that the multi-maintianer issue had obviously not
> reached a consensus. There were objections, but (apart from you, who
> were silent) the objectors did seem to be coming around to having on
> maintainers address on the package.

>	Moreever, in absence of a technical committee to help resolve
> issues, fiat by a balanced policy manager was the best we could do.

>	I am, personally, appalled at the attacks on the Policy
> manager. For the most part, in my opinion, he has been doing a good
> job

I quite agree. He seems to be a reasonable fellow.

Ian> to the status of law. This is clearly inconsistent,

>	No ot os not. Policy can be influenced by anyone joining the
> policy group, which is open to everyone. The technical committee is a
> cabal which the unwashed masses have little say in selecting.

Maybe I am being naive, but I thought policy constitutes at the very least 
a set of handy guidelines for a Debian developer. Of course, for a package 
to be (and remain) successful it needs to be maintained properly, but to be 
considered for inclusion it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask a package 
maintainer to follow these guidelines, if only for sake of consistency - 
especially when those guidelines have been evolved from reasonable debate 
(and are open to change, by the same method).

Presently, policy -is- open to change, because there is this list. Now 
there's talk of a 'constitution' and a 'technical committee' whose status 
and function is to me rather unclear. While the policy list is maybe not 
really the appropriate list to discuss a constitution nor to discuss the 
functioning of 'governing bodies', one would expect at least a separate 
list to discuss matters of change in the way internal matters are handled. 
For lack of a better place, I would say the policy list would be the place 
to discuss these, because, in a sense, this definitely influences any 
guidelines handed to Debian developers. At the very least, they would have 
to be non-contradictory!

I do not, at present, have time to subscribe to the developer's list, but I 
am still interested in the way Debian handles things on a more global 
level. That's why I read the policy list. I would therefore request to 
either create a new list, meant for matters related to how Debian is being 
run, like a 'constitution' or a 'technical committee' or to move discussion 
of meta-matters to the policy list, as this is not really a -technical- 
issue and it is my understanding that the -devel list is a technical list. 
But correct me if I am wrong.

I find having a constitution sprung on me out of the blue, as well as the 
forming of a technical committee whose authority is unclear rather 
unsettling and contrary to the open way things have been handled so far - 
rather un-Debian, so to speak.


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

Reply to: