Adam P. Harris said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Buddha> I think this proposal is in itself an example of this.
> >
> > Umm, no. This is basically a procedural proposal, and it sets
> > policy. This is not the domain of the technical committee, this is
> > the domain of the policy group. We vote on this proposal.
>
> Yes; I think you need to make explicit your intention that your policy
> itself will become part of the official policy. Bootstrapping, a bit.
That is exactly how I saw it, that the intention was that this proposal
become part of policy; that it would in effect add a "policy to amend
policy" to the policy documents.
As such, I find it's language -- relatively informal, heavy on personal
opinion -- to be unacceptable for the official policy documents. When,
six months from now, J. Random Developer reads in the policy document,
"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", how is he to
interpret who "I" is?
By the language of the proposal, it implicitly is designed to be acted
upon within it's own terms -- the explicit statement of the deadline
(set to the suggested "usual" period of discussion), the listing of the
seconds. When August 22nd rolls around, and a consensus has been
reached (which it looks like it will), who will make the necessary
changes (such as eliminating the "enacting language", renumbering the
sections, rewriting "I propose..."-type sentences to exact statements
of policy, etc)? The policy maintainers? In direct contradiction to
the policy of this proposal?
Before, we had a policy editor who was empowered to make those sorts of
changes, codifying consensed policy issues into the language of the
policy documents. This new policy procedure proposal moves that power
from the hands of the editor to the hands of the proposer. Guy Maor
likened the job of the policy maintainer to that of a secretary --
making the changes as ordered by the policy group. As such, the
language of the amendments needs to reflect the actual language in the
policy documents.
This does change how the policy group works, in that the policy group
can't rely on the editor to make the language right, and must be more
explicit in how they want the new language to read. How that new
language is decided upon can be as informal as it always was, but the
end result, the consensed policy, needs to be exact.
I would much rather have, in addition to the proposal that Manoj has
already made, a section such as:
==============================
4. Formal Amendment
-------------------
To codify the policy issues and procedures discussed above, we
propose the following changes to the Debian Policy documents:
4.1 Elimination of the "policy editor"
--------------------------------------
That the second paragraph of section 1.3 (Feedback) of the "Debian
Policy Manual" be changed to read:
"While the authors of this document tried hard not to include any
typos or other errors these still occur. If you discover an error
in this manyal, or if you want to tell us any comments, suggestions,
or critics please send an email to the Debian Policy Maintainers
Team
at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the Debian policy mailing list
<debian-policy@lists.debian.org>, or submit a bug report against the
`debian-policy' package. Also, section 6 of this document describes
the policy for making amendments to Debian policy."
4.2 Policy Amendment Procedure
------------------------------
That a new section 6 be added to the "Debian Policy Manual" reading
as follows:
"6. Procedure for amending Debian Policy documents
--------------------------------------------------
...
"
4.3 Further Recommendations
---------------------------
We further recommend that a formal amendment to the Debian
Constitution be presented eliminating the role of the policy editor and
creating the position of the policy team.
==============================================
Of course, I don't claim that my language is good, but it is an example
of what I'd like to see.
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
