Hi. Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my soul, and, added to my evident inability to coherently and fluently put forth my opinions in a convincing fashion has led to much of the conglagration on these lists. manoj Who would not go as far as his rand sig generator >>"Phil" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Phil> I've been keeping an eye on this discussion, and find myself Phil> smiling at the slightly disingenuous way that the two sides have Phil> been characterising the opposing view. Phil> When described by the opposition, the two views come out as: Phil> A: Policy is just for fun, and can be ignored on a whim. Phil> B: Policy is more important than life, and any infringement should be Phil> punishable by expulsion from the project, or preferably death. ;-) Phil> Now clearly, these are not the views that are actually held by Phil> either side, which seem to come out as something closer to: Phil> A: Policy should be adhered to, except where (in the Phil> maintainers opinion) it would be more appropriate to Phil> something else (on technical grounds) Phil> B: Policy should be correct and up to date, in which case Phil> there should be no reason to allow exceptions, because Phil> things that are justified exceptions should be included in Phil> policy. Phil> Is that fair ? < donning flame proof armor ;-) > Close enough (I would be in favour of amending policy to be in line with correct behaviour too). Phil> These are not nearly as far apart as you guys are making out, Phil> and could be combined to say something like: Phil> Policy should be adhered to. Phil> In cases where the policy conflicts with what they consider to Phil> be best for their package, they can chose to ignore policy, as Phil> long as they also attempt to have policy changed by discussing Phil> it on debian-policy. Phil> If this discussion results in a change in policy, well and good. Phil> If the discussion concludes that they were wrong, they must Phil> fix the bug that they have introduced into their package by Phil> ignoring policy. Phil> While the discussion is under way on debian-devel, there is Phil> little point submitting bug reports pointing out the policy Phil> violation, unless that violation results in behaviour that Phil> could damage a user's system if they installed the package. Phil> In any case, if a maintainer insists on uploading buggy Phil> packages, against the consensus of the Debian developers, Phil> various sanctions, up to and including expulsion from the Phil> project are always available. Phil> Of course, if the policy included a: Phil> ``Policy may by ignored while the clause in question is under Phil> discussion'' Phil> clause, then the policy could also a have a Phil> ``Policy MUST be obeyed at all times'' Phil> clause, since the exclusion would be in the policy ;-) Phil> Does that satisfy both sides ? -- "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! It is a dangerous servant and a terrible master." George Washington Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]