On Tue, Aug 10, 1999 at 02:01:08PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > [...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
> 1. Someone propose to abandon /usr/share/doc in potato and go back to
> /usr/doc. Two advocates of using /usr/doc in potato second the proposal.
> Since this is not "extremely important", people is afraid
> of making formal objections and the proposal is accepted, and
> policy is modified.
>
> 2. Later, someone propose to abandon /usr/doc and use /usr/share/doc
> instead. Two advocates of /usr/share/doc in potato second the proposal.
> Since this is not "extremely important", people is afraid of making formal
> objections and the proposal is accepted, and policy is modified
> accordingly.
There's no need to be "afraid" of making formal objections. It's
an extreme measure, that's not generally necessary.
The reason that it's not generally necessary is that an *ordinary* objection,
where you just post and say "I think this is stupid", or "I think the other
idea is better" and give reasons. Then you argue, and try to reach a mutually
acceptable conclusion.
While you're still arguing, then consensus hasn't been reached. After you've
finished arguing, you've presumably found common ground, or at the very
least found out whether -policy generally thinks your objections are
worth considering, in which case either consensus has been reached, and
you agree with it even, or there's an obvious problem that has to be fixed
with the proposal and everyone else is aware of it.
Personally, I think the problem with this is that the distinction between
an ordinary objection and a "formal" one isn't particularly obvious. The
former is just part of the cut and thrust of debate, whereas the latter
cuts of debate entirely, and says that the issue being discussed is beyond
the scope of the -policy list.
> Do you want a "technical" objection? I have objected to this proposal
> because I don't see any technical flaw in *current* policy which justifies
> changing it.
Which is perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, numerous other people
have posted saying that they *do* have a problem with current policy,
and that not having all the /usr/doc stuff accessible from a single
directory is annoying.
Just because you're not in that group of people who'll benefit from this
doesn't mean you ought to demand that they go away and leave you alone.
OTOH, technical objections like "this solution will break dpkg" or "doing
this would mean we'd have 5000 extra maintainer scripts hanging around
for the rest of eternity" are certainly relevant.
> I think this should be enough, and should not be considered the end of the
> world. As Manoj has pointed out, the policy procedures were not designed
> to deal with highly controversial issues like this one. We need the policy
> procedures to be that way so that things are approved by consensus.
Feh. The only reason we've had problems dealing with this is because
none of us really knew how the new -policy proposal guide worked,
and when to use formal objections, and when not to. That the "ideal"
solutions generally tickled bugs in dpkg and next to no one had any idea
exactly what the actual results of most of the ideas would be didn't
help matters either.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpNIiKmzN31a.pgp
Description: PGP signature