[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like the best message for me to respond to.]
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is: What needs to be policy? > > Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop > programs that tie the system together and are used in many packages > (examples are the menu system, update-alternatives, dpkg, etc), the > interfaces these programs present eventually assume the weight of > policy, and that those interfaces should be codified and included in > the policy document. > > On the other hand, I think that these interfaces need not appear in > policy. What I'm seeing is that we're overloading "policy" with other [rather important] functions, such as "standards" and even, to some degree, "interface definitions". Policy should be rather broad in scope and concise in expression. -- Raul
