On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:18:40AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > One thing I didn't say before is that, /in theory/, I'm willing to > > help with maintenance of the devref package if the problem of > > public-by-default change process is addressed. I didn't mention > > this because I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I'm > > committing to being active on the package - rather, every time I've > > thought of volunteering to help with the devref (which I agree is an > > important document), the lack of public process has been a blocker > > for me. > Addressing this can actually have an interesting side-effect, which I > believe to be a problem in the current way of maintaining devref: > namely, the fact that maintainers are not notified when relevant > changes get into devref. Still, it is not clear to me which kind of > "open process" do you mean. Assuming the -policy venue is OK for > everybody, would it be enough for you to have commits notified on that > list? I think the bug traffic should also be there, so that there's an opportunity to comment on proposals. > If, on the contrary, you want an acceptance process which involves a > lot of people, then I believe we are not in the condition to attack > that, given the little manpower on both devref and policy. Having a smaller number of seconds (one?) would be enough for me, as long as one objection is enough to keep a change being pushed through as "best practices" without further evidence. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature