Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:12:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > > The basic idea from how I look at it is that Policy uses consensus as a > stabilizing factor as well as an approval process. This is typical for > very conservative document maintenance, such as for standards. In order > to change the document, one needs consensus, but once one has that > consensus and the change has been made, that change persists not for so > long as it has consensus but rather until there's consensus to change it. > In other words, the barrier is to the document change, rather than > approval of a specific thing the document says. At the time this change > was proposed, I think it clearly had consensus (indeed, from the bug log, > it was apparently unanimous).
Point taken. The reason why I started this discussion is that I care for the Policy (otherwise I could simply have ignored it). I agree that once a decision is taken it must be difficult to challenge it. I will leave a couple of weeks for absent people to provide extra insights in this discussion, and then bring the issue to the technical comittee. I would like to thank everybody for this discussion, that despite our disagrements was nice and productive. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
