Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
Hi.
Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the
while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual
stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my
soul, and, added to my evident inability to coherently and fluently
put forth my opinions in a convincing fashion has led to much of the
conglagration on these lists.
manoj
Who would not go as far as his rand sig generator
>>"Phil" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
Phil> I've been keeping an eye on this discussion, and find myself
Phil> smiling at the slightly disingenuous way that the two sides have
Phil> been characterising the opposing view.
Phil> When described by the opposition, the two views come out as:
Phil> A: Policy is just for fun, and can be ignored on a whim.
Phil> B: Policy is more important than life, and any infringement should be
Phil> punishable by expulsion from the project, or preferably death.
;-)
Phil> Now clearly, these are not the views that are actually held by
Phil> either side, which seem to come out as something closer to:
Phil> A: Policy should be adhered to, except where (in the
Phil> maintainers opinion) it would be more appropriate to
Phil> something else (on technical grounds)
Phil> B: Policy should be correct and up to date, in which case
Phil> there should be no reason to allow exceptions, because
Phil> things that are justified exceptions should be included in
Phil> policy.
Phil> Is that fair ? < donning flame proof armor ;-) >
Close enough (I would be in favour of amending policy to be in
line with correct behaviour too).
Phil> These are not nearly as far apart as you guys are making out,
Phil> and could be combined to say something like:
Phil> Policy should be adhered to.
Phil> In cases where the policy conflicts with what they consider to
Phil> be best for their package, they can chose to ignore policy, as
Phil> long as they also attempt to have policy changed by discussing
Phil> it on debian-policy.
Phil> If this discussion results in a change in policy, well and good.
Phil> If the discussion concludes that they were wrong, they must
Phil> fix the bug that they have introduced into their package by
Phil> ignoring policy.
Phil> While the discussion is under way on debian-devel, there is
Phil> little point submitting bug reports pointing out the policy
Phil> violation, unless that violation results in behaviour that
Phil> could damage a user's system if they installed the package.
Phil> In any case, if a maintainer insists on uploading buggy
Phil> packages, against the consensus of the Debian developers,
Phil> various sanctions, up to and including expulsion from the
Phil> project are always available.
Phil> Of course, if the policy included a:
Phil> ``Policy may by ignored while the clause in question is under
Phil> discussion''
Phil> clause, then the policy could also a have a
Phil> ``Policy MUST be obeyed at all times''
Phil> clause, since the exclusion would be in the policy ;-)
Phil> Does that satisfy both sides ?
--
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! It is a
dangerous servant and a terrible master." George Washington
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: