> Hi, > >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Philip> This seems reasonable. > > Indeed. > > Philip> If no one objects I'll upload a copy of the policy manual > Philip> with this change. > > Could you please set a period where objections may be tallied, > and there is chance to determine if a consensus indeed exists? (For > the record, I have no objections to this amendment.) However, we need > a formal process to modify Policy; without such a process in effect I > am afraid I must object to any modification of the policy document.
Quite. > Philip> While I'm about it, I'll set the Maintainer to be me (since > Philip> no one else seems to be volunteering for the Policy Manager > Philip> job). > > Oh, good. I do think, however, that we need a group of people > to maintain the policy, with perhaps a policy czar for deadlock > breaking. Also, one of the major objections to the previous policy > manager was that the policy manager was closer to being author than > being an editor who merely edited the manual to follow the consensus > reached on this mailing list. I would like to have this clarifeied > before the aegis of policy-protector is passed to anyone. I certainly don't want to be held responsible for policy, so am only interested in being the person that says ``If this is the consensus, I'll type it up for final approval'', just to avoid the current situation where things get agreed, but nothing gets into the manual. I could do with one or more people who are willing to take over this role, for when I actually have an opinion about a policy issue. For example, I wouldn't want to be ``in charge'' if there were a discussion about policy on GNU code being linked against non free libraries, because I have an opinion about that, and it would only lead to accusations of misuse of power (yeah, right. I'm doing this for the power trip ;-) > Formerly, we did have a process by which policy was amended, > and even that was deemed insufficient since there were no consensus > determinnation processes in place. I would like to see something > instituted before we mosify the policy. This is just going to put an unnecessary block on changes where there is no argument. For contentious issues, I agree it would be nice to have a mechanism for deciding, but in the mean time we might as well get on with the trivial changes to which nobody objects. Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
