Re: How to reratify the DFSG ?
Ian Jackson - Debian Project Leader <leader@debian.org> wrote:
> However, I personally have at least one outstanding issue with the
> DFSG that I'd like to see changed - the `patches only' exception in
> para.4.
To fix what? This is a rather contentious paragraph, and I can
imagine several conflicting directions for a change.
> There are also a number of other issues that need to be resolved. In
> particular, the status of standards and documentation in general needs
> to be sorted out.
[Has anyone been tracking the issues that were raised regarding
documentation? I haven't.]
> Furthermore, I think the DFSG isn't very well-worded in general -
> it seems to have a couple of rather specific points where general
> rules would be better. For example, it says there must be `no
> discrimination against fields of endeavour'; surely it should say that
> no restrictions are allowed except ones that it should list.
Huh?
> So, I have a wide spectrum of choices. Naturally I could push my own
> agenda (and, being a zealot I think this would be the Right Thing, of
> course). The leadership role has a lot of ability to control the text
> of documents, especially if the document is proposed by the leader.
If you could, rather than presenting it as an agenda of things that must
be dealt with or in terms of specific language, could you present it in
terms of the underlying issues or problems or conflicts that you forsee?
Also, I'd lay out priorities roughly as follows:
(1) Release of hamm
(2) Slink priorities
(3) Upgrading DFSG
(4) Ratifying DFSG
Rationale: getting it right is more important than certifying that it's
right.
There's also other apt, dselect, and dpkg issues, but I'm not sure what
their relative priorities are.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: