Re: PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy documents
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
>
> This proposal does not change policy. One of the first things
> to be done, of this proposal passes, shall be the policy change that
> would codify it.
Actually, I do see this proposal as changing policy. I am willing to
accept that this proposal does not change the policy documents, however.
I can accept that since we don't have a working policy for changing the
policy documents, this proposal will be "an undocumented policy for
changing the policy documents, to be documented once the policy is in
place".
I don't have a problem with that ;-).
>
> The fact that I may be a policy maintainer does in no way
> lessen my ability, as a Debian developer, to send in a proposal to
> amend policy.
If I implied that your position as a policy maintainer lessened your
ability to propose policy amendments, I sincerely apologise. I did not
mean that to be the case. What I meant to convey was that I would
consider it improper for you to modify the language of a policy
amendment, even one that you proposed, when updating the policy manuals.
> I would rather not. I want to have an proposal to amend policy
> pass, and then using the process formally change policy.
>
> As far as policy is concerned, we should never be in a
> hurry. Passing this proposal can allow us fix overdue flaws in policy
> -- while we debate the formal amendment.
If this is -not- the formal amendment to be added to the policy
document, then I retract any and all criticisms I have made in regard
to the -language- of the proposal.
I would still like some statement to be made in regards to amendments
to the amendments. I do not mind the "informal" amendment style that
was discussed (author listens to discussion, and submits an amended
proposal, based on the issues raised in the discussion), but I would
like to see some minimal time for debate over an amended amendment. If
a new version is released too close to the deadline, there may not be
enough time for interested developers to review it before the close of
discussion. I don't see this as a major problem, but I'd still like to
see it dealt with.
> I would also like us all to have a taste of how this new
> process works before we write it into stone.
Agreed.
> manoj
> --
> He that loses hope may part with anything. -- Congreve
> 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
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: