On 15 Aug 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Santiago> This has not happened in this case. We decided to switch > Santiago> from FSSTND to FHS, which includes switching from /usr/doc > Santiago> to /usr/share/doc, and nobody objected, so we had a > Santiago> consensus. > > We made a general, sweeping, policy decision, to adopt the > FHS. The detail, it was expected, would be worked out. We also said > that not all details of the FHS may be adopted (/var/state is one > that comes to mind). > > We are now working the details out.
Well, you say that we made a "general" policy decision to adopt the FHS, but the fact is that policy was patched to read /usr/share/doc everywhere instead of /usr/doc. This does not seem like a little "detail" to me. > Santiago> This issue is already resolved by current policy, which > Santiago> says to use /usr/share/doc, with no special symlinks or > Santiago> anything. > > No. The policy says no such thing. Show me, the paragraph, > where it says that. About /usr/share/doc: There are lots of paragraphs talking about /usr/share/doc, I don't think we need to quote them. About symlinks: see below. > Not mentioning symlinks in no way prohibits them You may be mixing different things here. I thought we were discussing about this proposal (the one in bug #42477, i.e. /usr/doc vs /usr/share/doc). You seem to be talking about "/usr/share/doc with symlinks" vs "/usr/share/doc without symlinks". > Santiago> I don't have any special "model of doing things". I just > Santiago> think that we reached a consensus when we decided to switch > Santiago> from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc. > > We are not rescinding that. I think we are. > Santiago> Now some people want to break the consensus and go back to > Santiago> /usr/doc, and I consider this as a bad thing, because it > Santiago> breaks a previous consensus. That's all. > > I think you are mistaken. The people merely want to defer the > timetable for that particular move. The original decision to adopt > the FHS did not do anymore than set a tentative timetable, and the > timing details can be defined by subsequent proposals, like this > one. I thought that policy was policy, not "tentative" policy. The way I read your words it almost seems that someone has to present a proposal and get seconds to keep things as they are (i.e. use /usr/share/doc without requiring symlinks). > Santiago> If you think current policy procedures are unacceptable, > Santiago> please amend them. I don't think it is necessary. > > I think we do need to specify some additional guidelines for > using the veto. Overfrequent (note: I did not say frivoulous) use of > the veto shall shackle this group, since that would require near > unanimity, rather than the 75% super majority we agreed to when we > adopted the guidelines. If we go back to /usr/doc, I will be tempted to use the word "frivolous" for the previous policy amendment that switched from /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc some weeks ago. I think policy matters should be treated more seriously than that, and going back to /usr/doc would be a bad precedent. > >> I think that the current attitude of intellectual intolerance > >> (I *must be right, and everyone else is obvioulsy wrong) would make > >> the policy list ineffective. > > Santiago> The policy list is still effective for dealing with > Santiago> technical issues, and I hope it will continue to be. > > I think we can be more than that. I think that we should be > able to pass amendments that may even be unpalatable to some people. For example, the symlink forrest on a per package basis? ;-) > Requiring us to please all the people on the list all the time > would make it impossible to achieve anything in here. I wish you were a little bit more optimistic. I think the procedure for amending policy (proposed by you, btw :-) has worked very well so far, and I'm very glad of that. "impossible to achieve anything"? The reality I see is very different. Thanks. -- "75ec58b08ad1131a4cb235931704baa5" (a truly random sig)
