On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:42:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I've now done a bit of research about this, prompted by the fact that > > when I visited -policy in my newsreader today for the first time in a > > few days there seemed to be very little of any use and a lot of noise. > I think the problem you perceive would be alliviated by making > some changes in the BTS itself.
I agree with Santiago here. Automating away the annoying bits of the policy process seems like a much better solution than getting people to essentially waste their time clearing up the noise. > Instead of changing the bug title from "proposal" to "amendment" and > such, the proposal could be in a series of different "states". Anybody could > monitor the state of a give proposal by looking at the DPTS web pages, > and the debian-policy list would be only for discussing the technical > details. Furthermore, is there any reason why ammendments couldn't automatically be applied? Accepted ammendments could easily include a diff against the SGML source (instead of the .txt), and patch is already written... At least, the only thing required of the editors then would be deciding when to make a release, and by how much to increment the policy version number. And I still think we need to be able to separate out individual issues about a single policy proposal. It's too easy for them to get lost (either the issue, or the resolution) in a single unthreaded bug log. It makes a certain amount of sense that we need a smarter tool to handle open issues against policy than open bugs against most packages. To me, anyway. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' -- Dave Clark
pgpCNXfOHKmAP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
