-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I think we've got a few issues here...
One is an authors control over their own code. For example, IWJ basicly (co-?) owns dpkg. Debian-policy should not have any power to dictate what an author does with his own code, including dpkg. On the other hand, no package has the power to dictate policy to Debian, either. If dpkg is modified in such a way that it no longer conforms with debian-policy, then Debian needs to find a new package manager *NOT* dictate to dpkg's author on how to write it. If a package violates policy some other way, it has to be modifed to fit Debian policy or excluded from Debian. Two is how debian-policy is decided. In this regard, I'd prefer a middle ground. I don't think the current system is working as well as we hoped and I don't think "fiat" (or whatever Manoj calls it) would work as well. I'd rather see a policy committee right along side the technical committee. That way, there is *some* control over policy by the 400+ developers and policy is still under the care of people who've proven themselves competant. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* ========================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqauE7bps1lIfUYBAQFrxQP/W44TtcKOscuAQi4cP4xHJI45qPKS9UeA Sc8pKcUV0zQC0+cc7NtuWl63WTwElU4DMSSHHuTXFpfgR74sep/SU4fI8vCOiKxq uKfi4dop38vus7kNDklM4AwF2sxsqH0PDg7TkCh8sa2QWmgOfTMv0LqdxXAOHk4Y ckLhuTo0hGI= =QQdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
