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

Re: Processed: should have been reassigned not closed (or bugs I agree with)

Previously Steve Greenland wrote:
> Ian, this is completely unacceptable. Most of these proposals were
> closed [REJECTED] because they failed to attract sufficient support in
> the policy group, according to the system proposed by Manoj Srivasta
> and accepted by the participants in the policy group (aka everybody in
> Debian who cares to read debian-policy and participate.)

Okay, let me step in here and stir up the fire. What Ian is running into
here seems to be that some bugs just aren't `sexy' enough for lack of a
better term. If a proposal is obviously correct there is no discussion
and will die silently unless the submitter has the time to personally
go through the whole policy-change process and make sure it gets in.
Unfortunately not everyone has the time to do that, and it has happened
twice to me now that I submitted a proposal to which nobody complained
but for some reason it never made it into the policy manual. I probably
should have taken more time to track those proposals, but unfortunately
my time is severly limited, and I expect to have less time to do that
this year. That is a shame, but should not be a reason for a proposal
to be forgotten.

What Ian is basically saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that he
would like to see someone in charge of policy who takes a more active
role and will pick up those lost proposals himself. Someone who takes a
more active role in the process and is willing to make a stand if
needed. I agree that the old process with a single policy czar did not
work, we've proven that. However the current process seems to have gone
too much into the opposite direction, and we might want to look into
finding some middle ground.


 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| wichert@liacs.nl                    http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Attachment: pgp_ZzLAvXhcG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: