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

(was Online Help) Standards not Policy?



The Online help question i asked and the debconf thread from a couple
of weeks ago seem to point in the same direction. 

That is, we have nearly 1000 people working towards a hopefully common
goal. They're all volunteers, and everybody understands that. Nobody
(well, very few people) want to force things down others' throats. 

OTOH, we want a quality product in the end, and the nature of the
beast is that we have many many threads flowing into one big rope, and
we'd like the rope to be strong and usable.

I think most developers want the same goal, and would like to have a
reference to give them ideas about how to make their code as usable as
possible in the Debian environment. Checklists of things that
interfere, and things that promote that goal.

So maybe we should separate out the May's in policy and the packaging
manual, into a separate standards document. This would be nothing but
how to do things the best Debian way. Then policy would become simpler
and less contentious, containing only the 'requirements'. The
standards would be completely optional, but a reservoir of best
practices that new developers could draw on.

Eventually, as a large percentage of packages come up to a given
standard, that could then move into policy, the same way the May's
turn into Shall's now.

The nice thing about it would be that no one would/could object to
putting all kinds of great stuff in a standards document, and the
discussion about forcing developers to do this or that would come up
much more rarely.

IMHO.
  
-- 
*------v--------- Installing Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 --------v------*
|      <http://www.debian.org/releases/woody/installmanual>      |
|   debian-imac (potato): <http://debian-imac.sourceforge.net>   |
|            Chris Tillman        tillman@azstarnet.com          |
|                   May the Source be with you                   |
*----------------------------------------------------------------*



Reply to: