Re: Welcome to Debian Astronomy!
Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
>> I would draw some more attention to the Policy, where debian-astro
>> should not deviate too much from debian-science.
>
> I personally think that Debian Science policy is a bit poorly
> maintained. My feeling is that amongst the lot of people nobody really
> feels obliged to work for a document that is dedicated to explain
> newcomers how to join the team. I think when working on a policy
> document for Debian Astro the astronomers might find a lot of stuff that
> could be merged back. Usually I recomment the Debian Med policy as
> template but a recent effort in Debian GIS[1] makes me wonder whether
> this document should rather be the best current template. On the other
> hand: *If* (and only if) Debian Science could provide the best advise to
> newcomers which is always up to date other team policies could create
> their documents simply via some sed replacement regexps.
I am afraid that this is a good (actually a bad) example for the
fragmentation.
There is no real need to have diverging policies here -- the gis policy
could actually easily adopted by debian-science, as well as the
debian-med policy. Just something has to do this. And it seems, that
having a -gis and a -med just removes the attention from a common work
in -science towards small, very specialized blends? At the end, we
actually do things twice (or three times): once in -med, then in -gis,
and finally in -astro. Instead of just discussing it once in -science.
Since you are a -med guy: could you think of proposing a common updated
-science policy, where -gis, -med (and finally -astro) could derivate
from? (no idea how this techically would work).
Best
Ole
Reply to: