[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updating Debian Policy

>>"Steve" == Steve Robbins <steve@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> writes:

 Steve> Essentially, I suggest that the language be changed from the
 Steve> conditional to the present tense, and all the `policy
 Steve> rationale' be dropped.  I attach my quick attempt to do so.

        I disagree about dropping the rationale, I probably shall make
 it into footnotes.

 Steve> * The proposal talks about putting the policy documents into a CVS
 Steve>   repository with a team of 4-8 `maintainers'.  I have written this as
 Steve>   implemented, but I'm not sure it is.  

        It is.

 Steve> * A status document is mentioned.  Does it exist?  Is it exported to the
 Steve>   web as described?

        The weekly news updates by Joey Hess have taken over this aspect.

 Steve> * The document describes using the BTS for proposing
 Steve>   amendments, and
 Steve>   indeed I see there are bugs filed against policy.  I assume therefore
 Steve>   that this is the 'current' practice, and left those bits in.  I don't 
 Steve>   really know if all the bug titles ([PROPOSAL], [AMENDMENT], [ACCEPTED],
 Steve>   etc are really in use.  I don't know if all the deadline, deadline
 Steve>   extension, and dispute resolution stuff is really in use.

        It is.

 Steve> And finally, the controversial question:

 Steve> * Who can file a policy bug, anyway?  I have heard from three people
 Steve>   about this recently.  Two (one a developer) claiming that anyone can
 Steve>   file a bug, and one developer claiming that only registered developers
 Steve>   may file a bug.  The language in this document is left vague on this
 Steve>   point.  It needs to be fixed up either way.


          I propose that issues are brought up in the policy group,
          and, if the initial discussion warrants it, any developer,
          with at least two(?) seconds can formally propose as a
          policy amendment.

 Steve> Now, from my own selfish point of view, I can't see the hurt
 Steve> caused by a non-developer making a policy proposal.  To get
 Steve> adopted, a proposal needs two seconds, and be
 Steve> non-controversial (i.e. rough consensus on debian-policy).
 Steve> Isn't that enough to weed out `silly' policy changes?

        I think not. Anyone is free to start discussion on this list,
 even to file bug reports against policy. But an amendment process
 must be started by a developer (indeed, there are people who question
 whether this mailing list has the authority to make changes to
 policy, even if it were composed purely of debian developers).

        If the suggestion is good enough, it should not be hard to get
 a deveoper to sponsor the proposal.

 Steve> At any rate, this `policy-update' document should be edited by someone in
 Steve> the know, to reflect the current practices.

        It does reflect current practice, for the most part.

 For fast-acting relief, try slowing down.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: