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

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.


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-hams/2012/05/msg00003.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00737.html

Reply to: