Re: what needs to be policy?
Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl> writes:
Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> However, once the document has stabilized, I think it makes sense to
>> bring the document under ther fold of this mailing list, so that
>> a) Policy documents are not scattered to the four winds,
>> b) the Packages affected by the sub policy are spared the whims and
>> vagaries of a lone developer ;-)
Wichert> Does that mean that you want things like
Wichert> /usr/doc/modutils/placement.Debian.gz and other subpolicies
Wichert> to be moved to the debian-policy package once they are
Wichert> stabilized?
Are they really policy? Do they affect multiple packages? Or
are they merely the documentation of modutils? If we decide they are
indeed policy (I see no mention of this in any policy document, so I
can't be sure), then yes, I would like to incorporate that as Debian
policy, in the policy document. Then if later the modustils
maintainer decides to change the behaviour, we can declare the newer
modutils as violating policy, and protect the other packages that
followed policy from being rendered non-working. (not that I think
the maintainer os going to do any such thing ...)
I think I would like to get away from the good old country
club days when every one was expected to play the straight bat and
not tread on any toes, and move to a SOP that sets down rules
clearly, and allows for a formal dead lock resolution scheme, without
putting god like powers in the hands of the project leader of the
tech committee.
Wichert> I suggested that a couple of months ago and got the reply
Wichert> that subpolicies were just that and would never become part
Wichert> of the `official policy documents'. As an example the
Wichert> emacsen-policy you mentioned a couple of times now was also
Wichert> mentioned in that reply iirc.
I do not remember who it was that said that. What were the
reasons for not extending policy so that we incorporate conventions
that allow packages to cooperate, without fear that one fine day
everything may stop working, since the convention is not policy?
Is there a rationale for that?
manoj
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing. Edmund Burke
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: