Re: Conflicts between developers and policy
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the
> law, and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down
> interpretations (which are referred to latter as and adjunct to prior
> law).
The committee does more than interpret. They can decide that a
debated section of policy is completely wrong and choose a compromise
which reverses it for example.
> I still find the wording confusing. "All that policy can say
> is whether something conforms to or does not conform to policy".
Yes, specifically it can not say that...
> policy ought to (should) be followed (is that not an oxymoron?).
> I am not required to follow it, and yet it is authoritative to
> bug filers; I an see a lot of contention developing there. (and
> again, the tech committee is brought in.)
Yes, that's why Ian proposed defined qualifiers for the various policy
sections. We (developers) just assume that policy is correct until
the tech committee tells us otherwise.
If, for example, I choose to violate policy, I had better have a
really good reason. In most cases it's clear to all concerned that
the reason is valid, and we have to amend policy, or that I'm wrong
and should make my package conform. If I'm really stubborn and insist
that my reason is valid, I can ask the tech committee to make a
decision. They might say that that section of the policy is correct,
and I should conform, or they might agree with me.
So we really just continue debating policy as we always have been.
> who likes the quiet certitude of the ISO standards
Putting the policy in that light really does put too much power in the
policy maintainer's hands.
Guy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: