Re: Technical committee resolution
Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
>> Have you raised this idea with the tech-ctte? What do the other
>> members think of having review of Policy change proposals be part of
>> the tech-ctte job? How would the mechanics of this work? (Manoj's
>> Policy change proposal has the tech-ctte as an automatic appeal for any
>> rejected Policy change, but this sounds more active than that to me.)
> I would suggest that as a first step, without needing to change anything
> anywhere else, the policy maintainers advise submitters of rejected
> changes of their courses of appeal.
>
> So for example if you think the change is a bad idea, you can have a
> little form letter that says
>
> [explanation of why not to replace /etc with a binary `registry']
>
> For the reasons above, we have decided not to accept your proposed
> policy change. This is because we think
> [*] it is a bad idea
> [ ] the design is incomplete
> [ ] it requires a practical demonstration
> (indicate one or more)
>
> We may of course be wrong. If you disagree with this decision
> and wish to pursue the matter further you should refer the matter
> to the Technical Committee. Please send them a copy of or a
> reference to this email, along with the reasons why you disagree.
>
> or something.
So, I could start doing this right now if you'd like. Manoj and I have a
handful of Policy bugs that we've tagged dubious and that I was planning
on closing at some point. I could just go close them all and refer people
to the tech-ctte for appeal.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: