Re: Conflicts between developers and policy
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> Manoj suggests on the one hand that there is too little control
Ian> over the Technical Committee, and then on the other hand that we
Ian> should elevate policy (which is currently decided on by fiat by
Ian> one person, in cases where they choose to do so)
I have generally found that policy is actually decided by
discussion on the policy lists, and I do not agree with your
characterization that the multi-maintianer issue had obviously not
reached a consensus. There were objections, but (apart from you, who
were silent) the objectors did seem to be coming around to having on
maintainers address on the package.
Moreever, in absence of a technical committee to help resolve
issues, fiat by a balanced policy manager was the best we could do.
I am, personally, appalled at the attacks on the Policy
manager. For the most part, in my opinion, he has been doing a good
job.
Ian> to the status of law. This is clearly inconsistent,
No ot os not. Policy can be influenced by anyone joining the
policy group, which is open to everyone. The technical committee is a
cabal which the unwashed masses have little say in selecting.
Ian> and anyway, as Raul says, there is plenty of opportunity to
Ian> override the Technical Committee.
That is open to interpretation, is it not?
Ian> But the key point is this: the proposed constitution is now being
Ian> discussed on debian-devel and will soon be voted on.
Please note that the debian-devel list has always been cc-ed
to until you removed it from the headers. Why is this discussion any
less valid for the purposes of modifying the constitution? This is
aimed not as a proposed amendment, but to raise an issue and test the
waters. If anything, I think people should consider this aspect of
the constitution.
Ian> _That_ document is what will define the answer to what power is
Ian> ultimately held by whom, not any flameage here or anything
Ian> written into the policy manuals themselves.
Labelling a discussion not going in the direction you wish as
flameage is sheer demagoguery. If people reading this consider this
issue to have any merit, they shall vote accordingly on the
constitution.
manoj
--
My boss just told the quote-of-the-day(TM) after talking to our
friendly IBM salesguy who said: "You've got be careful about getting
locked into open systems." Heh! Why don't I trust these people? :-)
Ian Dickinson (cudep@warwick.ac.uk)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: