On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 10:50:59AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 02:24:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Why are you coming in to this forum, and fixing things that do > > not seem to be broken? > I'm trying to understand some conflicts between various things I've > read.
Here's a couple of thoughts:
* The key things about -policy is that it's open (anyone can make
motions, object to them, support them or ammend them), and that
it's done by informed consensus, rather than voting (where valid
dissenting opinion can get lost in the noise) or by some elite
(who may not have the interest/ability to see that particular
items are done right).
* -policy isn't an `individual maintainer', or even some random
group of maintainers. It's every maintainer who's interested in
compatability amongst packages, either by staying subscribed
through thick and thin, reading the archives when interested,
or just reading the couple of bug reports they care about.
FW they're W.
> I must say that I'm disappointed in the responses I've gotten from
> the policy group. While I've seen one message with specific advice
> (roughly: go ahead and propose some changes and we'll judge them),
> most of the responses I've gotten have been overly general platitudes.
You asked ``How should we change -policy to conform to the constitution?''
We said ``We shouldn't.'' and gave reasons. How do you want this to be
more specific?
As far as exactly how the constitution might be changed, or what you (the
tech ctte) or Wichert (as DPL) should say or do to clear things up, I
dunno. As an excuse, though, that's not exactly /technical/ policy.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgpbEUvGkGftx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
