In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam P. Harris writes ("Bug#27906: SUMMARY of Bug#27906: [PROPOSED]
> Binary-only NMU's "):
>> If this topic under discussion is a proposed correction to the
>> devel-ref, we should refile the bug accordingly. I would be
>> delighted to determine best practice and document them in the
>> devel-ref.
> Is the Developers' Reference not one of the policy documents which
> debian-policy has sway over ? Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes.
No, you're not stepping on my toes. However, I have kept
maintainership over the developers-reference.
> I think it ought to be within the scope of the policy list to
> discuss the procedural issues which the Developers' Reference
> discusses, or do you disagree ?
> Perhaps I should reread these manuals.
I argued, when Manoj suggested that <debian-policy> take over
developers-reference, that in fact, the developers-reference mostly
discusses the actual state of affairs of the Debian archive, and how
maintainers should interact with the Debian archive. As such, the
person who really should have power over the document are the archive
maintainers. I work (I hope) pretty closely with Guy Maor on the
archive maintenance side, and James Troup on the new maintainer side.
The have worked with me to correct problems and ensure accuracy.
I would also like to state that I don't think I have an axe to grind;
on any controversial issues I pledge to follow the recommendations of
the archive maintainers or the policy group.
However, I think, in retrospect, I was right to argue to keep the
package for myself. Could anyone here imagine the improvements I've
made tot he developers-reference would have been made if the Policy
Amendment process was applied to that documentation?
[ BTW, I don't think this group should be maintaining the
Packaging Manual, but I don't volunteer for that job... ;) ]
.....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
