Re: [PROPOSED] Merging the packaging manual and policy packages
Hi,
>>"Robert" == Robert Woodcock <rcw@debian.org> writes:
Robert> Ok, reading through those a few times, I see that Manoj said in
Robert> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00072.html:
Robert> "I hope I am not incorrect in assuming that the debian-policy,
Robert> packaging-manual, and the developers-reference packages constitute
Robert> the core of the policy documents."
Robert> According to him this is a proposal.
It was a statement. It was, in context, part of a move to get
started with assuming control of the packages that made up the core
of Debian Policy.
Robert> Note that it is unseconded, noone ever voted for it, and
Robert> noone ever objected to it.
A statement does not need to be seconded (most of yours aren't
either). And the relevant bit is that there were no objections to the
statement, or to the further proceedings where control of the Policy
documents was taken from the previous maintainers and passed to this
mailing list.
What do you expect one to do? Ask for a full vote on every
single darned statement?
Robert> It also requires the reader to
Robert> equate "core of the policy documents" with "carrying the
Robert> weight of policy".
When I say some thing is the core of Debian Policy, do you not
think that carries the weight of policy? If the core policy documents
do not carry theweight of policy, what does?
Robert> In light of this, I am inclined to agree with Manoj that the
Robert> packaging manual is policy, although I ask Manoj to use a
Robert> question next time he wants a group of people to state
Robert> whether they agree or disagree with something.
I made a statement. If you disagree, say so.
Robert> This slight of hand has created quite a bit of confusion
No sleight of hand involved. I can't help it if you were
slacking and not paying attention. In a group like this, if you do
not participate, you miss out in having input. Whining later helps
little.
Robert> among developers, especially me. :) Until bug #31645 has been
Robert> marked as 'done' neither the Policy document nor the
Robert> Packaging Manual will recognize the Packaging Manual as
Robert> policy. I never saw a public announcement that a concensus
Robert> was reached either - surely an addition of 3115 lines of text
Robert> to policy would have warranted some notice on -devel-announce
Robert> or at least -devel. Indeed, in your announcements to
Robert> -devel-announce regarding policy on Oct 30 and Nov 27, you
Robert> never gave it a mention.
You are good at playing fast and loose with the truth. The so
called announcements to -devel-announce are dupload announcements of
individual packages that comprise the policy. In my mind, the policy
documents had always consisted of three documents -- and the
significant part was that one was dropped, rather than that two were
still included.
Robert> I can't find anything in a quick search of -devel about any concensus
Robert> either.
We do not submit all consensuss on the policy group somewhere
else.
Robert> Please don't do this again.
Unless you propose into policy that all devcisions of the
policy group be announced elsewhere, this is bound to happen again.
Robert> Ok, I apologize. You were not rewriting history, you were
Robert> just writing it without any input. :)
Someone has to do the work, sometime, or else nothing gets
done. ;-)
Robert> Bottom line, I no longer have any objections about people claiming the
Robert> Packaging Manual to be part of Policy.
Thank you.
manoj
--
I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: