Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I wish you would talk to Raul directly. He points out that
> violations of policy shall be enforced thus:
> a) since policy is supposed to be authoritative for bug filers, and
> policy violation can be flagged as a bug.
> b) any disputes about the bug are to be resolved by the tech
> c) the tech committee looks at the policy manual for guidance.
Er.. and there's things like the checks the archive maintainer does
before putting packages in the archive. And there's things like
lintian, which people might want to run before submitting their
packages (and other test suites which have yet to be invented).
It's that things which people haven't invented yet concept which has
had me objecting to this concept of "policy must be followed". If
you look at policy as a set of *goals* rather than a set of *rules*
I think you'll have something a lot more valuable.
> Unless there is some reason for me to follow policy, I
If you mean this destructively (analogy: as if policy is some kind of
playpen which we keep you in so that you don't go trotting off and
swallow some drain cleaner), then I really wish you'd leave the project.
If you're really as technically competent as I think you are, however,
then I wish you'd manage to wrap your mind around the concept of
policy as a high-level expression of what the project is.
> I do confess to being surprised at the vehement opposition a
> simple sentence like "policy should be followed, except for certain
> riders, which are ...". I wonder.
When you arrive on a new job, do you expect to be told procedures for
thinking, for using the restroom, and for walking? If you started
advocating such things, what kind of reception do you think you'd
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org