Re: Request for policy interpretation: procedure and possible outcomes for naming conflicts
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't know what to say to this, since this question seems exceedingly
> strange to me. The way we maintain Policy is by consensus, so if a
> consensus develops around a solution, the answer is obviously yes? Or,
> perhaps, the answer is obviously no since the same consensus would change
> Policy and the solution would therefore obviously follow Policy? I don't
> know if one of those answers is what you're driving for.
Yeah, sorry for the lack of context. I was hoping an answer one way
or another would help conversation move past moments like [1], where I
proposed a way forward (inspired by a message from Marco[2]) and got
no answer about it:
| Policy does not allow this. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> In general, Policy is intended to make our distribution consistent and to
> help our packages integrate. The end goal is the Debian distribution, not
> following Policy for its own sake. Obviously, if we come up with a better
> solution than what's currently in Policy, we should do that!
Thanks. That is what I did a poor job of saying before, and I think
it answers the question well.
Jonathan
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00003.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00737.html
Reply to: