Re: PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy documents
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
> Guy> Now I'm confused. I thought we were talking only about technical
> Guy> proposals? Either way the rules for who can propose, issue,
> Guy> etc. technical and non-technical proposals are already in the
> Guy> constitution. Such a four-person rule would be unconstitutional.
I happen to find the "technical" vs "non-technical" distinction fuzzy
and not particularly helpful. According to the Policy Manual
Sec. 1.1, this is the scope of the Policy document:
This manual describes the policy requirements for the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution. This includes the structure and contents of the Debian
archive, several design issues of the operating system, as well as
technical requirements that each package must satisfy to be included
in the distribution.
> I think we are talking at cross purposes. Are you contending
> that policy be only changed via a general resolution? I think that is
> extraordinarily wasteful of time an d effort, involving as it does
> the whole developer community (not just the policy group); and
> bringning in the full weight of the parliamentary process into the
> policy group.
>
> If this is true, then the policy mailing list has no
> meaning. And indeed, I shall be forced to campaign against the
> constitution.
>
> Looking at the powers of the tech committee, the constitution says:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 5. No detailed design work.
> The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals
> and policies. Such design work should be carried out by
> individuals privately or together and discussed in ordinary
> technical policy and design forums.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This proposal represents individuals designing policy in the
> debian-policy mailing list. This is not a general resolution. The 4
> developer veto makes the policy amendment a formal General
> Resolution.
Yes, I agree. In most day-to-day cases, the Policy group should and
must be able to conduct Policy discussions and amendments without the
intervention of the Technical Committee or other Constitutional
issues. Only in cases of extreme dispute (formal objection) should
the intervention of Constitutional bodies come into play.
I could see that an attempt to modify the *scope* of policy, since
this is a rather drastic change, might involve that committee.
In any other situation, the Policy group should be able to conduct
business unfettered. This is the only way we can continue to improve
Debian.
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: