Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist Please suggest delegating binary name conflicts to the tech-ctte in last resort.
The common reading of the according section does neither match what seems to be the original intention [1] nor my common sense. [1] http://lists.debian.org/<879142cjni....@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu> * Russ Allbery [2012-05-01 10:28 -0700]: > Carsten Hey <cars...@debian.org> writes: > > > The origin of what the policy suggests to do if there is no consensus is > > a mail from Guy Maor <879142cjni....@slip-61-16.ots.utexas.edu>, in > > which he writes: > > | That's basically a stick to force developers to reach a consensus. > > > Christian Schwarz uploaded this change later in this month. > > > I don't think that there ever will be a consensus in all those > > discussions without discussing in a reasonable way (which failed in the > > past multiple times). Previously to this, asking the VP of Engineering > > for a decision was suggested in this thread. > > I have to admit that I'm tempted to change Policy from "if there's no > consensus, rename both of them" to "if there's no consensus, try harder to > reach a consensus, and the technical committee decides in last resort." "technical committee decides in last resort" could be read as if it would decide without being consulted. To avid such a misreading, a clearer wording that for example uses the word 'consulted' could be used. Besides this minor nitpicking, it would be great if the policy could be adapted as described in the quoted mail. > Most of the time, renaming both of them isn't the right answer. I'm even unable to imagine a case where renaming both would be the right answer. Regards Carsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120501221322.ga14...@furrball.stateful.de
