Hi,
As people have doubtless been aware, we are currently without a
policy editor, and the policy document has consequently been
languishing. I want to break us away from a moribund policy document,
and try to come up with a scheme of doing so that would be less
fragile than the previous process, and less fraught to the
possibility of concentration of power than having a single policy
editor totally in charge of the process.
I propose we select/install a group of people who have access
to the CVS policy document; however, this set of people behave more
like maintainers rather than authors/editors. The group that decides
on policy should be the group of developers on the Debian-policy
mailing lists, which is how it was always done; so the group of
policy maintainers have no real power over policy. Since they would
have access to the CVS repository I guess it is desirable that the
people so appointed be ``mature'', however that is determined.
The way I see it, we need to resolve the following protocol
issues:
a) proposing amendments to policy. Unlike before, when the policy
editor gathered in issues which, in his view, were candidates for
inclusion in policy, I propose that issues are brought up in the
policy group, and, if the initial discussion warrants it, any
developer, with at least two(?) seconds can formally propose as a
policy amendment.
Periodically, (weekly?) one of the policy maintainers can
post a summary of current policy topics to Debian-devel, to keep
the general populace apprised of possible changes. The list of
policy topics can be posted on the web as well.
An interesting proposal is to have each formal proposal be a
wish-list bug against policy; and we use the bug tracking system
for tracking amendments; and it is already on the web.
I think that the severity wish-list should be used, in this
case, as normal and higher should be left for real problems
in the package, amendment proposals are not really bugs, but
enhancement requests. One can use retitle to keep track of the
proposal (proposed -- voting -- accepted)
b) Getting away from the Debating society aspect. At the time of
proposal, a deadline can be set )by the proposer?) for ending
discussion on the issue, which should rarely be less than 10
days, and typically two weeks or so. I hope that a hard minimum
period need not be set, and that the proposers would be
reasonable, and not set too short or too long a time for
discussion.
If a consensus is reached on the issue, well and good; the
policy maintainers can enter the changes into the policy manual
and inform Debian-devel as well.
c) deadlock resolution
If a consensus is not reached, (or if someone submits a formal
objection to the proposal) and the end of the discussion period
is near, then one is faced with a dilemma. If the issue is a
technical one, then the technical committee may be
consulted. This should be a rare occurrence, since technical
issue are generally solved with a consensus.
However, if the issue is non-technical and subjective, then a
vote of the developers may be taken (USENET voting software
should be available all over the place, right?); and a
super-majority of 75% (80%?) is needed to carry the amendment
through. Failing the super-majority, the issue should be
shelved, if re-submitted as a a fresh proposal. (Close bug, if
the BTS is being used)
I think that since the policy maintainers have no special
powers, there is no need to restrict their participation in the
discussion. We do need to have at least 4-5 people on the job, so
that policy does not languish when any maintainer goes missing (we do
need vacations, you know, once in a while), and since little creative
power is vested in the maintainers, we do not need a central
control. And the archives of the list can be used as a record of the
action decided upon even if all maintainers are away at some time.
I think Phil Hands has already volunteered for policy
maintainer, and I hereby do so as well. We just need to
con^H^H^H^convince a couple of other volunteers, and we are all set.
manoj
who apologizes to all Iowans
--
Three Midwesterners, a Kansan, a Missourian and an Iowan, all
appearing on a quiz program, were asked to complete this sentence:
"Old MacDonald had a . . ." "Old MacDonald had a carburetor,"
answered the Kansan. "Sorry, that's wrong," the game show host
said. "Old MacDonald had a free brake alignment down at the service
station," said the Missourian. "Wrong." "Old MacDonald had a farm,"
said the Iowan. "CORRECT!" shouts the quizmaster. "Now for $100,000,
spell 'farm.'" "Easy," said the Iowan. "E-I-E-I-O."
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]
