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
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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org