I like this! Go get 'em!
On 6 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > 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] > > > Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
