Le Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 05:58:19PM +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > I think that the current policy maintenance approach is too > bureaucratic and relies too little on the technical judgement of the > policy editors. I would like to see the policy editors assess > proposals not only for consensus and support, but also to consider > proposals on their actual merit. Support (in the form of seconds) and > consensus can be a very helpful guide to the merit of a proposal, and > seeking consensus and second opinions is a very helpful way to avoid > making mistakes, but IMO it is the merit of the proposal that should > matter.
Hi Ian, I think that the main problem is not the excess of neutrality of the Policy editors, but the lack of involvement from the Developers as a whole. For example, I am still amazed that despite we are expected to be hundreds, only one Developer managed to second the documentation of the Dpkg triggers (#582109), despite it does not introduce changes to the current practice (therefore, the challenge is only to check the accuracy; there is no arbitrary decision to take). This said, if the participation does not increase, it would make sense for the Policy editors to relax the current process. If I still have time next year and the situation does not improve, I can volunteer for the task. (For the moment I need to care of the big backlogs at all my other projects in Debian). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104133759.gg22...@falafel.plessy.net
