Bug#37233: marked as done ([PROPOSAL] FORMAL structure for DEBIAN-POLICY debate)
Your message dated 07 May 1999 14:01:29 -0600
with message-id <86iua47ip2.fsf_-_@trick.fig.org>
and subject line Withdrawn
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 May 1999 12:26:45 +0000
Received: (qmail 23164 invoked from network); 6 May 1999 12:26:44 -0000
Received: from ip223.net247210.cr.sk.ca (HELO trick.fig.org) (24.72.10.223)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 May 1999 12:26:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 22685 invoked by uid 1001); 6 May 1999 12:31:45 -0000
To: Debian Bugs <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: [PROPOSAL] FORMAL structure for DEBIAN-POLICY debate
References: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9905060014420.10026-100000@zirx.pair.com>
X-Attribution: Gord
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@trick.fig.org>
Date: 06 May 1999 06:31:43 -0600
In-Reply-To: Havoc Pennington's message of "Thu, 6 May 1999 00:48:13 -0400 (EDT)"
Message-ID: <86so9a8jm8.fsf@trick.fig.org>
Lines: 126
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
1 TERMINOLOGY
MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MAY, and MAY NOT are taken to have
their IETF RFC meanings.
A FLAMEWAR is a debate that increases in energy without reaching any
conclusion.
A PROPOSAL is a proposed change to the Debian Policy document.
An AMENDMENT is a proposed change to a PROPOSAL.
`DEBIAN-POLICY' is the debian-policy@lists.debian.org mailing list
used to discuss changes to the Debian GNU Policy document.
2 INTENT
To eliminate FLAMEWARS on DEBIAN-POLICY.
3 PLAN
This PLAN provides a mechanism to mark and ignore TROLLS, thereby
preventing FLAMEWARS. It also requires that PROPOSALS and AMENDMENTS
be given a FORMAL structure that present ideas clearly for INFORMAL
debate.
3.1 FORMAL messages MUST consist of the following structure: one
`TERMINOLOGY' section, one `INTENT' section, zero or more `PLAN'
sections, and one `CONCLUSION' section:
3.1.1 Sections and paragraphs MUST be NUMBERED in legal format (1,
1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, etc).
3.1.1.1 Sections and paragraphs MAY be named by putting the NAME in
capital letters on a line by itself.
3.1.1.2 Sections and paragraphs MUST be referenced in the proposal or
followup discussion by their NUMBER, or their NAME.
3.1.1.3 Items of the PROPOSAL which are known to be incomplete SHOULD
be denoted with the word `FIXME'.
3.1.2 The TERMINOLOGY section introduces any TERMS that are needed to
understand the proposal as a whole.
3.1.2.1 Any TERMS used in the document MUST be capitalized.
3.1.2.2 TERMS that do not appear in the TERMINOLOGY section MAY be
defined at any time, even after their first appearance.
3.1.2.3 A TERM is a word whose meaning is precisely defined for the
purposes of the proposal.
3.1.3 The INTENT section MUST be complete, and describe the motivation
behind the given proposal.
3.1.3.1 Amendments MUST NOT change the spirit of the INTENT; a new
proposal MUST be submitted if the INTENT changes significantly.
3.1.4 Each PLAN section MUST consist of a time-ordered set of tangible
steps designed to implement the INTENT.
3.1.4.1 If there is more than one PLAN, then they MUST be
distinguished by different names (falling back on alphabet letters, if
no names are obvious `PLAN A', `PLAN B', etc).
3.1.4.2 Each step in a PLAN MUST be assigned to a separate
paragraph, to facilitate discussion.
3.1.4.3 Steps in a PLAN, and the PLAN itself SHOULD have costs and/or
benefits associated with them, to help strengthen the CONCLUSION.
3.1.4.4 If no PLAN is known, then the PLAN section must contain the
word `FIXME: unknown.'
3.1.5 The CONCLUSION MUST provide a brief evaluation of each PLAN,
explaining why it is or isn't desirable.
3.1.5.1 The CONCLUSION SHOULD point out foreseeable problems with the
proposal itself, to suggest possible improvements.
3.1.6 FORMAL messages SHOULD end in a request for seconders, to make
it clear that they are a PROPOSAL or AMENDMENT.
3.2 FORMAL messages MUST be written in an objective,
emotionally-detached tone.
3.3 All PROPOSALS (and AMENDMENTS) sent to debian-policy MUST
be FORMAL.
3.4 INFORMAL messages either do not conform to the structure described
in 3.1, or are emotionally heated.
3.5 A Debian maintainer MAY reply to any INFORMAL DEBIAN-POLICY
message with `Subject: TROLL'. An INFORMAL message that has received
such a reply is called a TROLL.
3.6 INFORMAL replies to TROLLS MUST NOT be posted on DEBIAN-POLICY.
3.7 INFORMAL replies to TROLLS MAY be made if they are not crossposted
to DEBIAN-POLICY.
3.8 FORMAL replies to TROLLS are permitted.
4 CONCLUSION
I believe this is a simple, yet effective set of rules to get
DEBIAN-POLICY out of its current rut. Adopting this PROPOSAL will
encourage people to work together on refining policy ideas, rather
than attacking one another.
It will also reduce the ability for non-list-members to send a TROLL
to DEBIAN-POLICY, then step back and watch the resulting FLAMEWAR to
their own amusement. One of us will simply call `TROLL', and then
force the others to convert their TROLL into a FORMAL message, or drop
it entirely.
I hereby request seconders for this PROPOSAL.
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
Reply to: