Re: Making sure that policy amendments don't die
On Sat, May 29, 1999 at 10:23:32PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > b) Formally seconded, and a time
> > table set for discussion (normally normal bug, titled [AMENDMENT yy/mm/dd]
> > 10 days to a month)
>
> How many seconds should this require? 1 or 2?
2 IMHO. Manojs argument was that if a proposal doesn't even get the
attention of two developers, what may it be worth?
> > Should we keep the rejected proposals around in the BTS in
> > state fixed, so that one does not have to redo the old arguments over
> > again?
>
> Well it's all mostly archived in the list archives too, if someone brings up
> an old issue it can be found there.
BTW, does somebody know why the old bugs are completely erased? Shouldn't
they be left there for future reference? I mean all bug reports that were
closed, not only policy bugs. Of course, the BTS would need a filter to
handle this, and a few more commands.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: