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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Wed, Mar 25 2009, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> ke, 2009-03-25 kello 01:32 +0000, Noah Slater kirjoitti:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:39:46AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> > I'm curious... What do you think *is* the "Debian way of doing things
>> > like this" ?
>> Manoj's email strongly implied that a DEP was needless bureaucracy.

        The recent memoranda about DEPs did lead me to believe
 that. However ...

>> I'm hardly likely to argue with you about what constitutes the Debian
>> way, but considering we've let a proposal stew on a wiki for over a
>> year, have taken some discussion over to the mailing list and are now
>> working on a DEP, I find it very confusing that it should be
>> considered that we are somehow abusing the process.
> Speaking as one of the drivers of DEP0, I think you are misunderstanding
> how DEPs should be driven. They should not be used to control the
> discussion. They are, very fundamentally, a way to record consensus and
> the state of the discussion. As a by-product, they hopefully produce a
> document that will be useful later.
> If the people participating in a discussion have to be aware that
> something is discussed as part of a DEP, and have to adjust their
> behavior accordingly, the drivers have failed.

        This paragraph, and this one

> It's not very clearly written into DEP0, but it was always my
> intention, I and think Zack's and Dato's (that is, the people who came
> up with DEP in the first place), that the DEP process should introduce
> very low levels of bureucracy, and that _all_ the bureaucracy would be
> handled by the drivers. Indeed, as far as anyone else is concerned,
> the DEP might not even exist.

        make me view a DEP far more favourably. Using a process to track
 discussion, which does not impede said discussion, can only be

> (Also, DEPs are hardly the established "Debian way of doing things".
> There's only two accepted ones, and only six ones ever registered,
> counting DEP0 itself. I hope that DEPs will some day be accepted, but
> they won't be, if it's OK to use them as hitting implements.)


The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: