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

Re: Bug#39830: [AMENDMENT]: get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks

>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> writes:

 Chris> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:14:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> There is a proposal under consideration for changing the
 >> undocumented(7) man page. The current proposal is included below; it
 >> is not yet the final form; and input of the general community is
 >> solicited.

 Chris> Excuse me?  This is an old proposal which has been much debated and
 Chris> much revised.

	I did not say it was a new proposal. 

 Chris> It was also generally well-received, and I'm not quite sure
 Chris> how it slipped between the cracks for so long.

	*Shrug*. Since only one or two of the supposewd set of 5 or 6
 policy editors were active at any given time, things got done when
 there was time, and some stuff did tend to slip between the cracks. 

 Chris> Colin's new revision was proposed on Oct 30, and he suggested
 Chris> two weeks debate (which seems more than fair since this was
 Chris> already an old proposal).  Some minor changes
 Chris> (i.e. s/must/should/) were proposed by me and Mark Brown, and
 Chris> since the discussion period IS NOW UP, the text posted by
 Chris> Manoj to -devel (which incorporates the minor changes) IS

	Well, no, since Colin agreed that editorial changes to the
 SGML were indeed permissible. 

 Chris> The decision to forward this to -devel (and to make misleading
 Chris> claims about its status)


 Chris> seems to have been a unilateral decision on Manoj's part.  If

	Of course it was. And I reserve the right to forward matrerial
 on a public mailing list to any other mailing list as I feel desrves
 to be forwarded. If you think that such unilateral action is
 unwarranted, you do not understand how mailing lists work. 

 Chris> he weren't professing his own love for the proposal, I would
 Chris> suspect an underhanded attempt to undermine the proposal for
 Chris> reasons unstated.

	My, my. We are paranoid, aren't we? 

 Chris> If I were really paranoid, I'd speculate about why the policy
 Chris> editors ignored the earlier versions of this proposal, which,
 Chris> after much debate, *was accepted*!  But I won't go there.

	You already have. If your opinion mattered to me, perhaps I
 would respond substantively.

 Chris> But I am perturbed by Manoj's attempt to drag the debate out
 Chris> further when this proposal has been debated to death since
 Chris> June of 1999!  And all objections have been answered or
 Chris> addressed.  And it has a full complement (more than) of proper
 Chris> seconds already, and no remaining objections.

	Well, I think because getting input from the general developer
 body is never a bad idea. I think that major changes in packaging
 ought to receive wider circulation than just the policy list. 

 Chris> I am also perturbed that Manoj, who WROTE our current policy
 Chris> update policy seems to be completely and deliberately ignoring
 Chris> that policy with his post to -devel.  Manoj, what gives?  (If
 Chris> you actually object to the proposal, please, object!)

	Also, because I am more interested in doing the right thing,
 and looking at the spirit of the consensus building process, rather
 than being a rules lawyer. You do agree that resolving any flaws we
 may have overlooked is more important than not missing a deadline,
 don't you?

	And stop being paranoid. This is not an adversarial situation
 (unless you make it so), the idea is to et to the best solution we

 Chris> Anyway, while I have no objections to input from -devel
 Chris> readers, I have to say that anyone who's concerned about how
 Chris> changes in policy may affect them should already be subscribed
 Chris> to -policy.

	Yeah, in an ideal world. But most often policy issues are not
 of interest to the wider body of developers. Once in a while, a topic
 that may have wider impact comes along, and then we inform -devel,
 and ask for input.

	This policy is not going to change. 

 Chris> Now, if this were my proposal, I might allow a further three
 Chris> days discussion, out of respect for Manoj.  I think three days
 Chris> is more than adequate for a three-year-old proposal.  But at
 Chris> this point, it's Colin's proposal, and unless *he* decides to
 Chris> extend the debate, I think this proposal lives or dies TODAY!
 Chris> (And with many seconds and no objections, that means it
 Chris> lives.)

	Thankfully, you do not decide when things die.

 Gold, n.: A soft malleable metal relatively scarce in distribution.
 It is mined deep in the earth by poor men who then give it to rich
 men who immediately bury it back in the earth in great prisons,
 although gold hasn't done anything to them. Mike Harding, "The
 Armchair Anarchist's Almanac"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: