On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:28:58 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > > > Without having looked into it I guess a bit more than a simple revert > > > > of the commits might be helpful; any takers? > > > Please go ahead and > > Why did I expect that reply? :) > Yeah, sorry for not taking more acive role in this. I really should, as > I was the one pus hing for the changes (that we're reverting now) in the > first place :/ No problem, I wouldn't have asked the question if I hadn't been prepared to work on it :) > > Find below the diff between policy.pod and policy.draft. > Thanks for preparing this. > I agree with your changes, with one question: Thanks. > > +The Debian project has adopted the Debian Maintainers (DM) concept (cf. > > +L<http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003>) in Summer 2007. The pkg-perl group > > +doesn't see this approach fit for its workflow and is not actively using > > +it. > How strong is that meant? Yup, that's the question, and my wording is just a first attempt to get to a clarification. > DM (the concept) forbidden, discouraged, is > decided on a case-by-case basis (how?)? Hm, I guess "discouraged" is clearer and roughly what I tried to express with "not actively using"; "forbidden" seems difficult because a DD in theory still can decide to upload a package with DM-U-A. (And I'd rather not have the "case-by-case basis" written down because that leads to the mess we have now :)) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Treibhaus: Heroes of Woodstock
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature