Re: Revised proposal for updating Debian Policy documents
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> We are nearing the end of the proposed discussion period. The
> proposal so far has met with almnost universal approval
Let me just say right from the start that I think that your current
guidelines for updating policy (they really are guidelines rather than
a policy for policy) is excellent and I'm anxious to put it into
practice.
[Plus you adopted all my suggestions, so hey, what's not to like?]
> , with the
> exception of Ian Jackson, who thinks formal process is not required
> for policy updates.
To this claim I would counter that, if you read it, it's pretty clear
that what your proposing, Manoj, is more like "guidelines" than
some strict process.
To see how it's not all that different from what we have now, only
better (and more scalable), I would point out that there is no formal
process for determining "consensus". And this is a good thing, I
think.
> Note that under the guidelines of this proposal, that would
> require a vote amongst the
Woah, must have been late. Haven't seen you trail off like this for a
while.
BTW, noticed grammar and spelling issue. "Light-weight" should by
hypenated.
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: