Re: /usr/doc transition and other things
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> writes:
> Raul> (*) Policy is *supposed* to be a formulation of existing
> Raul> practice. If everybody agrees, the technical committee doesn't
> Raul> need to get involved.
On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 02:28:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> How can evolutionalry changes be then ratified into policy? I
> understand about new policy issues, you get a bunch of packages to do
> things, and then make that practice policy. (This has pros and cons)
>
> If this statement is interpreted strictly, then once set,
> policy is indeed writ in stone (doing things different from the
> policy document can't be existing practice unless people blatantly
> violate policy, and then we make policy whatever thoise people are
> doing).
>
> I am beginning to feel we are straying too far into
> bureaucratic realm here, but may be I just don't get the issues
> involved.
And maybe I don't. Perhaps you have a specific example in mind?
That said:
First off, I'm not sure it's a good idea for policy to be a rapidly
changing entity. Debian produces packages -- policy is a means to
that end. Having a fairly stable policy might not be very exciting.
But a stable policy is easier for people to learn, use, and document
than a changing policy. At least, to the degree that policy specifies
interfaces [and where it doesn't specify interfaces it's probably not
technical policy].
Second, there is the mechanism of the techical committee. The committee
is set up to be able to turn around a decision in a week or less,
once the groundwork has been laid. The current situation [with the
FSSTND->FHS directory migration] is taking longer than that, but it's
hardly a normal situation.
Fundamentally, it's far more important that technical policy always be
correct than that policy be able to mutate rapidly.
Finally, don't forget about the traditional practice of labeling something
as "depreciated but legal". You've not raised that issue in this message,
but I think you touched on it in some other messages.
--
Raul
Reply to: