Re: PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy documents
[Recipients stripped to the policy group]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
> Buddha> How will consensus be determined? Will one opposing
> Buddha> developer be able to force a deadlock? If not, how many?
>
> Human judgement? Do we need formal methods, really? I trust we
> have a modicum of common sense and decorum left. If people really are
> in disagreement, they may formally voice an objection; the proposer
> can then poll each objector and ask if their concerns have been
> resolved. If not, we go to the vote. Yes, one opposing voice can ask
> for formal deadlock resolution.
>
> Shall I add this to the proposal?
Well, it probably wouldn't hurt. You talk here and in the proposed
policy of a "formal objection". What does it exactly mean, a "formal
objection". I think all it means is that a debian developer simply
states, in relation to an issue, in an email to the Policy group, "I
formally object to this amendment."
In generally, I agree with you Manoj that it's best to keep the whole
procedure pretty "loosey-goosey", with lots of wiggle room. I don't
have a problem with that. Look at how we used to maintainer policy
(the "Schwartz" way) and how well it worked in practice, for almost
all cases. The main problem in my book was Mssr Schwartz's inability
to spend a lot of time on it, and the theoretically scary notion of
how much power he had. Both are solved by your proposal.
> Buddha> I think this proposal is in itself an example of this.
>
> Umm, no. This is basically a procedural proposal, and it sets
> policy. This is not the domain of the technical committee, this is
> the domain of the policy group. We vote on this proposal.
Yes; I think you need to make explicit your intention that your policy
itself will become part of the official policy. Bootstrapping, a bit.
> This is way too heavy. This proposal is not meant to massively
> change the way that the policy group has worked before. This merely
> changes how things enter into the document. The policy group so far
> has debated over the policy being proposed, and traded excerpts back
> and forth, with the assumption that the originator of the idea merge
> in changes.
>
> I do not want to put the policy group in a straght jacket by
> trying to codify and restrict how they work.
>
> However, if we want to bring full parliamentary procedures
> into the policy group, speak now.
No no no no no! Your approach is perfect, Manoj.
> Do we need more than two seconds? Personally, I think 3
> proponets for an amendment is just right. Comments?
I suppose....
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: