Previously Steve Greenland wrote: > Ian, this is completely unacceptable. Most of these proposals were > closed [REJECTED] because they failed to attract sufficient support in > the policy group, according to the system proposed by Manoj Srivasta > and accepted by the participants in the policy group (aka everybody in > Debian who cares to read debian-policy and participate.)
Okay, let me step in here and stir up the fire. What Ian is running into here seems to be that some bugs just aren't `sexy' enough for lack of a better term. If a proposal is obviously correct there is no discussion and will die silently unless the submitter has the time to personally go through the whole policy-change process and make sure it gets in. Unfortunately not everyone has the time to do that, and it has happened twice to me now that I submitted a proposal to which nobody complained but for some reason it never made it into the policy manual. I probably should have taken more time to track those proposals, but unfortunately my time is severly limited, and I expect to have less time to do that this year. That is a shame, but should not be a reason for a proposal to be forgotten. What Ian is basically saying (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that he would like to see someone in charge of policy who takes a more active role and will pick up those lost proposals himself. Someone who takes a more active role in the process and is willing to make a stand if needed. I agree that the old process with a single policy czar did not work, we've proven that. However the current process seems to have gone too much into the opposite direction, and we might want to look into finding some middle ground. Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
pgpe5EwzclHma.pgp
Description: PGP signature
