Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:11:25PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > I'm working on a proposal to handle this in a similar fashion to the
> > virtual package list, i.e. as a separate list we can change when
> > sufficient need is found. I've been slacking off a bit on finishing
> > it, while studying some alternatives, but I should have a proposal
> > soon.
> That's what I was asking, thanks. Um, part of why the idea was to add it
> to policy was that we already have a way to do that for the policy.
Ok, I finally finished up my proposal and posted it to BTS (#37713)
and -policy, and it has two seconds and no objections, so far. As I
mentioned in the preamble, people seem to be reluctant to make
incremental changes to the menu package (where menu policy sits now),
and there was some expressed reluctance to make incremental changes to
the policy document as well (Wichert, and I agreed with him). So a
separate document, like the virtual package list, seemed like the best
overall approach.
IOW, yes, it's *theoretically* possible to get changes accepted at
present, we have a mechanism, but there are non-technical reasons that
proposals *aren't* being accepted, which is what my proposal tries to
solve.
> Would you object to having changes in the meantime handled in the same
> sort of manner (sans the BTS stuff since we don't have a way to handle
> those real easily) until it's actually ready to go into policy? Or
> possibly a simplification of that process at least?
I don't think any of this actually has to affect how we propose
changes to the menu hierarchy. If you've got a proposal, make it. If
it's simple and non-controversial, then it might even go in as an
amendment to my proposal. Otherwise, well, my proposal is mostly
orthogonal to any changes to the hierarchy, so go ahead an make a
proposal as normal. But you might actually *want* to hold off till my
proposal is resolved, since my proposal is designed to increase the
chances that other proposals will get accepted.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
