Re: nouser/nogroup clarification

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> Hi,
> >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> 
>  Philip> This seems reasonable.
> 
> 	Indeed.
> 
>  Philip> If no one objects I'll upload a copy of the policy manual
>  Philip> with this change.
> 
> 	Could you please set a period where objections may be tallied,
>  and there is chance to determine if a consensus indeed exists? (For
>  the record, I have no objections to this amendment.) However, we need
>  a formal process to modify Policy; without such a process in effect I
>  am afraid I must object to any modification of the policy document.

Quite.

>  Philip> While I'm about it, I'll set the Maintainer to be me (since
>  Philip> no one else seems to be volunteering for the Policy Manager
>  Philip> job).
> 
> 	Oh, good. I do think, however, that we need a group of people
>  to maintain the policy, with perhaps a policy czar for deadlock
>  breaking. Also, one of the major objections to the previous policy
>  manager was that the policy manager was closer to being author than
>  being an editor who merely edited the manual to follow the consensus
>  reached on this mailing list.  I would like to have this clarifeied
>  before the aegis of policy-protector is passed to anyone.

I certainly don't want to be held responsible for policy, so am only 
interested in being the person that says ``If this is the consensus, I'll type 
it up for final approval'', just to avoid the current situation where things
get agreed, but nothing gets into the manual.

I could do with one or more people who are willing to take over this role, for 
when I actually have an opinion about a policy issue.

For example, I wouldn't want to be ``in charge'' if there were a discussion
about policy on GNU code being linked against non free libraries, because I
have an opinion about that, and it would only lead to accusations of misuse
of power (yeah, right.  I'm doing this for the power trip ;-) 

> 	Formerly, we did have a process by which policy was amended,
>  and even that was deemed insufficient since there were no consensus
>  determinnation processes in place. I would like to see something
>  instituted before we mosify the policy.

This is just going to put an unnecessary block on changes where there is no 
argument.  For contentious issues, I agree it would be nice to have a 
mechanism for deciding, but in the mean time we might as well get on with the 
trivial changes to which nobody objects.

Cheers, Phil.


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org