On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:14:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > So you suggest to just ignore "In each case the usual maintainer of the
> > relevant software or documentation makes decisions initially"?
>
> The TC has the authority to set technical policy. The maintainers are
> empowered to interpret how that technical policy applies to their particular
> packages. And the TC has the power to overrule the maintainers and tell
> them that their interpretation is incorrect.
>
> But the TC does not have to wait for a maintainer to take a decision they
> disagree with before they decide the technical policy in the abstract which
> may affect a maintainer's package.
>
> > If you decide on the init system question first, you could just file a
> > bug against debian-policy and things could go their usual way.
> > Alternatively, the Policy maintainers could defer this decision to the
> > technical committee under 6.1.3.
>
> The Policy maintainers are the maintainers of the policy document, they are
> not "maintainers of the relevant software" in this context.
I don't interpret "relevant software" to mean the general mass of
packages in the archive. In context it follows a list which includes
"the behaviour of non-experimental package building tools", and the only
plain reading of that text I can see is:
relevant software => non-experimental package building tools
relevant documentation => technical policy manuals, developers'
reference materials, example packages
So I think 6.1.1 requires the policy maintainers to decide or defer
first. (But regardless, Russ' statement on this that the policy
maintainers cannot decide on this given their current process seems
sufficient to me.)
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140212140550.ga28...@riva.ucam.org
