Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the law,
Manoj> and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down
Manoj> interpretations (which are referred to latter as and adjunct to
Manoj> prior law).
Guy> The committee does more than interpret. They can decide that a
Guy> debated section of policy is completely wrong and choose a
Guy> compromise which reverses it for example.
Well, I guess I am uncomfortable with that. I mean, there is
going to be this godly set of people who make technical decisions
that I, a mere mortal developer, have to live by -- They have to be
bloody good for me to put that much blind faith in any such body.
I think there are not enough checks and balances to limit the
powers of the technical committee.
Manoj> I still find the wording confusing. "All that policy can say is
Manoj> whether something conforms to or does not conform to policy".
Guy> Yes, specifically it can not say that...
Oh, I thought that is what Ian said. But then, going back,
Ian> So what power does a policy document have, in and of itself ?
Ian> Answer: just the power to declare what is and is not policy.
I see there is a difference. So the policy documents just say
what is policy. Whether something conforms or not is a matter of
interpretation.
Manoj> policy ought to (should) be followed (is that not an oxymoron?).
Manoj> I am not required to follow it, and yet it is authoritative to bug
Manoj> filers; I an see a lot of contention developing there. (and again,
Manoj> the tech committee is brought in.)
Guy> Yes, that's why Ian proposed defined qualifiers for the various
Guy> policy sections. We (developers) just assume that policy is
Guy> correct until the tech committee tells us otherwise.
Huh? We are debating this, are we not? I say that developers
should follow policy, and you say that developers need not follow
policy, and then again, you say developers take the policy as gospel.
I am confused.
What is your stance, then? Should developers treat policy as
correct, and follow it, or they should treat policy as correct, and
not follow it, or they should ignore policy, or
I am so confused ;-)
Guy> If, for example, I choose to violate policy, I had better have a
Guy> really good reason. In most cases it's clear to all concerned
Guy> that the reason is valid, and we have to amend policy, or that
Guy> I'm wrong and should make my package conform. If I'm really
Guy> stubborn and insist that my reason is valid, I can ask the tech
Guy> committee to make a decision. They might say that that section
Guy> of the policy is correct, and I should conform, or they might
Guy> agree with me.
Why should you make your package conform? There is nothing
that says you have to follow policy. Can the Tech committee make me
do whatever they darned well please? Since the policy document have
no more standing than, say, "The flight of the Bumble Bee", all this
means is that the tech committee pointed to a set of rules somewhere,
entirely at theur whim, and said "YOU! MORTAL! Follow THAT!"
That has been my point. If the Policy documents have no
standing, especially in the defining document that awards authority,
then the technical committee can bring in any reference they choose
fit, not just the policy documents. (Like the MS OS manuals ;-)
This is too much power in the hands of too few. Especially
since the developers have no say in who constitutes the board. How
answerable are they to the rest of the developers anyway?
I would rather be able to point to the policy documents as a
kind of limit to the powers of the technical committee. And have the
developers have some say in the shaping of the policy documents.
As it stands, the technical committee has way too much power.
Guy> So we really just continue debating policy as we always have
Guy> been.
Manoj> who likes the quiet certitude of the ISO standards
Guy> Putting the policy in that light really does put too much power
Guy> in the policy maintainer's hands.
Not as much as in the hands of the tech committee.
manoj
--
"If life had a vomit meter, we'd be off the scale." Joe Bob Briggs
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]
