Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > That is not how it worked, Some people, the emacsen > developers, went out and created a sub policy document on their own, > and worked out the kinks. Once the process stabilized, a proposal was > made to adopt that as a policy document (not all the emacsen packages > conformed at the time, if I recall correctly). I would like to see this more structured. We discussed this a while ago and I think there was somewhat of a consensus that it makes sense to have subpolicies developed seperately and when they are stabilized moved into debian-policy in some way. However since then nothing in this area has happened, and now we have an emacs-policy, perl-policy, java-policy, modules-policy and possibly others out there. This seems quite sub-optimal. > Why are you coming in to this forum, and fixing things that do > not seem to be broken? I think what Raul wants mostly is some way to incorporate the way debian-policy works currently with the structure as layed out in the constitution. As his position as chairman of the ctte that is not an unlogical desire. Perhaps we need to add a small layer (perhaps the ctte itself) which sanctions (sprinkles it with holy penguin-pee as Linus would say) updates to the policy as decided by debian-policy. (perhaps sanctions isn't the best word here, I hope you know what I mean though). This would give a more formal framework in which debian-policy operates while not changing the current procedures. Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wichert@cs.leidenuniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpCBXndZnmHt.pgp
Description: PGP signature