Re: A proposal to revive the Policy document
I like this!
Go get 'em!
On 6 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> As people have doubtless been aware, we are currently without a
> policy editor, and the policy document has consequently been
> languishing. I want to break us away from a moribund policy document,
> and try to come up with a scheme of doing so that would be less
> fragile than the previous process, and less fraught to the
> possibility of concentration of power than having a single policy
> editor totally in charge of the process.
>
> I propose we select/install a group of people who have access
> to the CVS policy document; however, this set of people behave more
> like maintainers rather than authors/editors. The group that decides
> on policy should be the group of developers on the Debian-policy
> mailing lists, which is how it was always done; so the group of
> policy maintainers have no real power over policy. Since they would
> have access to the CVS repository I guess it is desirable that the
> people so appointed be ``mature'', however that is determined.
>
> The way I see it, we need to resolve the following protocol
> issues:
>
> a) proposing amendments to policy. Unlike before, when the policy
> editor gathered in issues which, in his view, were candidates for
> inclusion in policy, I propose that issues are brought up in the
> policy group, and, if the initial discussion warrants it, any
> developer, with at least two(?) seconds can formally propose as a
> policy amendment.
>
> Periodically, (weekly?) one of the policy maintainers can
> post a summary of current policy topics to Debian-devel, to keep
> the general populace apprised of possible changes. The list of
> policy topics can be posted on the web as well.
>
> An interesting proposal is to have each formal proposal be a
> wish-list bug against policy; and we use the bug tracking system
> for tracking amendments; and it is already on the web.
>
> I think that the severity wish-list should be used, in this
> case, as normal and higher should be left for real problems
> in the package, amendment proposals are not really bugs, but
> enhancement requests. One can use retitle to keep track of the
> proposal (proposed -- voting -- accepted)
>
> b) Getting away from the Debating society aspect. At the time of
> proposal, a deadline can be set )by the proposer?) for ending
> discussion on the issue, which should rarely be less than 10
> days, and typically two weeks or so. I hope that a hard minimum
> period need not be set, and that the proposers would be
> reasonable, and not set too short or too long a time for
> discussion.
>
> If a consensus is reached on the issue, well and good; the
> policy maintainers can enter the changes into the policy manual
> and inform Debian-devel as well.
>
> c) deadlock resolution
>
> If a consensus is not reached, (or if someone submits a formal
> objection to the proposal) and the end of the discussion period
> is near, then one is faced with a dilemma. If the issue is a
> technical one, then the technical committee may be
> consulted. This should be a rare occurrence, since technical
> issue are generally solved with a consensus.
>
> However, if the issue is non-technical and subjective, then a
> vote of the developers may be taken (USENET voting software
> should be available all over the place, right?); and a
> super-majority of 75% (80%?) is needed to carry the amendment
> through. Failing the super-majority, the issue should be
> shelved, if re-submitted as a a fresh proposal. (Close bug, if
> the BTS is being used)
>
> I think that since the policy maintainers have no special
> powers, there is no need to restrict their participation in the
> discussion. We do need to have at least 4-5 people on the job, so
> that policy does not languish when any maintainer goes missing (we do
> need vacations, you know, once in a while), and since little creative
> power is vested in the maintainers, we do not need a central
> control. And the archives of the list can be used as a record of the
> action decided upon even if all maintainers are away at some time.
>
> I think Phil Hands has already volunteered for policy
> maintainer, and I hereby do so as well. We just need to
> con^H^H^H^convince a couple of other volunteers, and we are all set.
>
> manoj
> who apologizes to all Iowans
> --
> Three Midwesterners, a Kansan, a Missourian and an Iowan, all
> appearing on a quiz program, were asked to complete this sentence:
> "Old MacDonald had a . . ." "Old MacDonald had a carburetor,"
> answered the Kansan. "Sorry, that's wrong," the game show host
> said. "Old MacDonald had a free brake alignment down at the service
> station," said the Missourian. "Wrong." "Old MacDonald had a farm,"
> said the Iowan. "CORRECT!" shouts the quizmaster. "Now for $100,000,
> spell 'farm.'" "Easy," said the Iowan. "E-I-E-I-O."
> 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-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: