Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
Just a thought...
All of you discussing this, should do several things: First, it seems
there is not consensus on the desired/actual strength of authority of
policy. THEREFORE: If this was not done before, ALL developers should
ratify policy. If it was, skip to the next step :)
Next, before just about anything else, it would be a good idea, as someone
pointed out, if certain key words in policy had defined standard meanings,
like 'must', 'should' and 'may'. If the RFC definition is known to everyone,
maybe it's appropriate that said definition be used.
Next, IF I were a voting member of this body (which I'm not), I'd say that
Phil's try at bringing the parties together was a really good job, since
Phil really listened to what both adversarial parties were saying, and
boiled it down quite well.
Finally, and again, IF I were a voting member and IF policy is ratified, I
would ask that folx unwilling to follow policy be denied essential packages.
Also denied should be those pkgs in main which are required, standard or
important. I _do_ ask this, as a user, and as a user, whether ratified or not.
-Jim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: