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

Re: Policy process



>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:

 Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Policy process"):
 >> 
 >> Each document, or part of a document, has one or more editors
 >> within that maintainer team.  Only the editor(s) responsible
 >> for a particular area should check in changes to that
 >> section, and then only when rough consensus has been achieved
 >> (see below).

 Ian> Most of the time this is simply the people who have CVS commit access.

      CVS commit access does not have to be tied in to content
 determination. 

 Ian> I know you don't approve of the idea of having experts on
 Ian> things, but Debian is run that way - that's why we have package
 Ian> maintainers.

      That is not true. I agree about needing experts -- i just don't
 think we need to hard code names into an alaborate setup of red tape.

       On the other hand, we do not have several people in charge of
 teeny parts of a package. We do not have one set of developers in
 charge of the scsi modules of a kernel image package, and another set
 in charge of the networking modules. Also, packjage maintainers can
 be changed at will _ people give away packagess to others, there are
 NMU's. But this is a digression; package maintainence is largely a
 red herring.

       I thik that people on the list can indeed come up with policy
 changes, with a few administrative tweaks to the process.

          I find it interesting that you believe that a small, vague
 guideline is good enough for the DSA, but is not good enough for
 another delgated power of the DPL.

 Ian> What I'm trying to do is make policy documents back into ordinary
 Ian> packages, with just a bit of stuff to make sure there's some
 Ian> consultation and a lightweight dispute mechanism.

      We have that already. The policy group developers are a loose
 confedration of maintainers, with perhaps one delegate from the DPL
 to be in charge, and break dead locks. 


    We really do not need the whole edifice of heirarchical barinies
 and the resultant fueds.

 Ian> No, we just make (eg) the SGML policy be part of the sgml-base package
 Ian> and edited by the sgml-base maintainer.  This is ultra lightweight.

      I think we need to get away from the little fiefdoms, and allow
 for a more participatory process.


 Ian> We don't need to identify these people - they by and large already
 Ian> exist.  They wrote the policy documents and are distributing them, but
 Ian> they daren't call them Policy with a capital P or the whole thing will
 Ian> be swallowed by the current awful process.

      That we do need to fix. And we shall, and we do not need to
 balkanize the policy document.


           manoj
-- 
 One expresses well the love he does not feel. J.A. Karr
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: