Bug#42432: debian-policy: Proposal for CTV for Draft for Proof of Concept for Draft for Proposal for Proposal for CTV for a CTV to decide on a proposal for a CTV for the CTV on whether or not we shoud have a CTV on the /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc transition now, or later.
The subject says it all ;-)
Well, from this you could draw 2, possibly 3, conclusions:
1) That I have complete and utter contempt for the process of deciding on
policy, and that I have no faith in this process.
2) That this _is_ getting out of hand, and we should really put a stop to
some of the drivel that occurs here.
3) Well... who cares? Why don't you put in a proposal outlining why my
proposal is evil, satanic, has links to M$, ESR, and [insert favourite pet
hate here], and that your proposal is heaps better, is beautiful, ethically
and morally perfect, has links to ESR, RMS, and [insert favourite pet like
here]. Therefore, and QED, you are right, and everyone else is wrong.
1) The amount of bickering that goes on is amazing. We cannot decide on
anything. We say that it is not our fault, and that there must be someone
else to blame. I really do not think that we will come to a sensible
conclusion to the /usr/doc v. /usr/share/doc within a month; in fact, I'd be
surprised if we have anything in concrete by the end of the year and Debian
2.2 (Potato) delivered with it.
This distrust of the process is not limited to the aforementioned debate,
but it is an apt example of how easily we can get bogged down.
Perhaps we are forgetting the broader picture - are we a distribution for
the users, or a distribution for the developers? And if the latter, why? Is
there a point in such a distribution? I think that we must return to our
focus of producing a quality product that can reach as large (even the
largest) an audience as possible. We must not become a niche product. It
would be ironic if the distribution that had the largest number of supported
packages and supported the largest range of hardware became the distribution
that was used by the fewest people.
Red Hat, for all their faults, do produced a distribution aimed at the
users. The seem to have come to the conclusion that a quality product for
oneself may as well be as good as a crap product for oneself. Parts of their
product (eg, the installation, X configuration, system configuration under
X, desktop integration with GNOME and KDE) are unrivalled. I am not saying
that we need to copy these things exactly, but many are good ideas that
could (and should) be implemented into our distribution.
2) Sheer drivel - Perhaps I'm being hypocritical here, but most proposals
turn into huge rants (8 to 15K). This is not a good thing. Most people don't
have time to go through all of the stuff people manage to dig out, write,
and back up their ideas with many examples and extreaneous quoting.
Hmm... what can we do about this? I do not wish to deny each and all's right
to respond and put forth new ideas, but perhaps a limit would be sensible.
(Uhoh... I can feel another bucket load of proposals coming...)
We need a a board. Do we have a board? I take it the SPI is not included,
and we have an executive made up of the DPL, and various other (elected or
The policy refers to a group known as the Technical Committee. Who is on
this? How was this decided? Has there ever been an example where they have
stepped in to put an end to disputes?
3) "Thou art the greatest" complex - Why do most (if not all) people here
have this? We cannot decide on a simple thing. We must involve obscure out
of context quotes. We must (well, not quite) quote from the Bible or other
This is wrong.
We need to learn how to agree.
Maybe there should be a period of control by the Technical Committee, or the
DPL, or the SPI. Maybe we should split up and go into fragmented, puristic
distributions. Maybe we should just end it all and shoot Bruce
Perens/RMS/ESR/[insert personal enemy here]. Whatever it is, it needs to
Well... it's good to get it off my chest. Hopefully we'll come to a
reasonable conclusion prontoish, and have Spud released before Christmas.
(ooh. Another topic. Release schedules. What the smeg is going on here,
people? We missed ALS, OLS, *LS, and we've done fsck all about it. Gee, I
can hear the RH people cheering us on. Ah well, maybe we'll just have to
make do with frozen chips. [Waaaah! I wanted my maaasive Woody before my
17th birthday! Waaaaaaaah!]).
<Ed.Lang@pcug.org.au> Edward C. Lang <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP Fingerprint: 22 6C D3 0F A5 BA 1A A0 40 75 08 6D 83 CA B7 29
woot on #debian #linpeople #linuxaus on irc.openprojects.net
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.1
Kernel Version: Linux master 2.2.6-ac1 #1 Tue Apr 20 02:41:23 CDT 1999 i686 unknown