Re: Bug#30036: debian-policy could include emacs policy
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam Di Carlo <apharris@burrito.onshore.com> writes:
Adam> In article <[🔎] hhiufyp12j.fsf@dres.elam.org>, James LewisMoss <dres@ioa.com> writes:
>> Everyone changes policy based on discussion here.
Adam> Um, kinda. You have to go though a whole *process*.
Yes, everyon has to go through the whole process. This allows
us to be able to change the policy rationally, and not be dependent
on the slings and arrows of outrageous maintainers.
Adam> Is Manoj proposing that this process be applied to these sub-policies.
Adam> No clear answer yet...
Yes, I am .
>> Don't. Just make a copy in the policy deb.
Adam> That would be silly, a bit, since much of the menu sub-policy is
Adam> utterly irrelevant qua policy.
Then I shall riup out the pieces that are not relevant, and
propose them here. This is not exactly rocket science, you know. This
is doable.
Adam> If the idea is that the Policy maintenance practices (i.e.,
Adam> submision, seconders, etc.) be applied to sub-policies, this is
Adam> an ever-increasing sphere of responsiblity for the Policy Group
Adam> and I can hardly see how you can deny that.
I would trust an open process with an inclusice group rather
more than depending on the kindness of individual developers. The
documents, once developed, have become standards that affect multiple
packages. The original author does not have total control over
everything.
We are, I hope, mature enough to recognize the expertize of
the original author in this area (his name is on the document,
after all), and to weigh their contributions accordingly. But, I do
not need to keep the kernel patch document strictly under my
thumb. You-all have a right to govern and contribute to it if it is
going to be policy (I shall propose that it be accepted in another
motion, but you get the idea).
Adam> I stand by my "middle-of-the-road" position that Policy should
Adam> instead *point* to a number of "blessed sub-policies", i.e.,
Adam> Look, I love the new system for maintaining Policy. I lobbied hard
Adam> for it. But this system is *barely* able to keep up with the course
Adam> of changes for the Packaging Manual and the Debian Policy. You can
Adam> try to deny this is true but it is. Bugs are stacking up. Manoj has
Adam> done a terrific job -- but why does he have to do it alone? Manoj
Adam> went on vacation and nothing got done.
Bugs are stacking up? Really? We have closed more bugs than
have been opened. And where are you guys, when it comes to
open bugs? Why are you, yes, *you* - not taking a bug and asking for
sponsors?
If no one participates, then surely Debian shall fall by the
roadside.
Adam> Until the Policy Maintenance teams gets a little wider in depth, and
Adam> shows they can turn around a greater volume of changes in the same or
Adam> shorter time, I think any discussion of increasing the duties of the
Adam> Policy Editors should be shelfed as impracticable.
It is not the job of policy maintainers to take a bug to the
final acceptance. It is the responsibility of this mailing list, and
quite frankly, most people on this mailing list have been doing
little but talk when it come to policy.
The bottel neck is not the policy maitainers -- there is not a
single accepted amendment that is hanging on the BTS.
You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.
Adam> The danger of course is that Debian could become hidebound.
Adam> Your asking to take control over from the maintainer/author of the
Adam> pacakge and documents, and give it to a clearly overworked and
Adam> under-coping Policy Editor system.
Who is over worked? Not the system, and nt the maintainers. It
is the members of this so called policy list that are slacking, and I
am tired of the maintainer being blamed for the lack of effort by the
memberts of this list.
Adam> I agree with your basic tenants:
Adam> * all policy should be taken seriously; edits to it should be taken
Adam> seriously and reviewed by this group and the Policy change control
Adam> system should be applied to it
Adam> * all policy should be readable in one, well-defined area.
Adam> But I just don't think we're ready for this step. Maybe once all bugs
Adam> older than 90 days are dealt with, I'll feel happier.
So get on with the bloody job.
Adam> Is it time to fire the current Policy Editors other than Manoj and
Adam> hire new ones? If not, why not?
What have the maintainers not done? Huh? What amendments can
the maintainers make to the docuemnts? Nothing has been passed
by the list. Stop blaming others when you have done nothing yourself.
Adam> qI don't mean to be harsh, but I think overextending the current
Adam> practices will destroy them, and I don't want that.
Nothing is bveing over extended here that I can see. If
everyone on this mailing list wants to just hang out, doing nothing,
then yes, I think this whole idea of having a policy mailing list is
bigus. Shall we ask Ian to appoint a policy czar, who shall go off
and issue dictums from the high, now that we know the policy mailing
list has failed?
manoj
--
We have had the reign of the late Avery Brundage, and now we have had
eight years of Killanin, which raises the question of whether being
an ass is one of the requirements for the job, or whether the job
produces that effect on those who hold it. -- National Review
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
Reply to: