Re: Policy process
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> It makes a certain amount of sense that we need a smarter
Anthony> tool to handle open issues against policy than open bugs
Anthony> against most packages. To me, anyway.
Let us see what this mechanism would need to do.
a) It should allow people to propose changes, and should keep track
of these proposals, so things do not fall through the cracks if
the person does not have the time/motivation to jump thorugh
hoops.
b) It should allow for and record seconds to the proposal.
c) It should allow people to CC mail to each proposal, and thus we
need a email address automatically set up for each proposal.
d) The proposals should be widely accesible to people, preferably
over an HTTP interface.
e) It should be possible to keep track of a state of a proposal,
f) It should be possible to have closely related variants of
proposals
g) This mechanism should have an email adminstrative interface (it
this point was not obvious from the above).
h) It should not require explicit attention from an individual for
most day-to-day work, perhaps a gpg check against the keyring for
changing states of proposals.
i) Older proposals should be archived for a longish time so we can,
in retrospect, go back and discover rationale.
The BTS is a close match, but not an exact one. And, it would
be nice to be able to separate out the BTS from this, then, so that
we can distinguish between a bug report and a policy proposal.
Sounds like a lot of work, though.
manoj
--
It's the good girls who keep the diaries, the bad girls never have
the time. Tallulah Bankhead
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: