On 29 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of
> Dale> developers, set down by the "ruling body", sometimes referred to
> Dale> as "the government". When those rules are view
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace
>> we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the
>> policy documents differently? no, but the signifi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace
> we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the
> policy documents differently? no, but the significance of the policy
> documents definitely shall change.
Er..
This mail message started out as a response to Marcus Brinkmann's
comment on the policy list:
> I think that [the multiple maintainer] issue can't be resolved
> properly ("we are stuck") without further input from all the other
> developers not participating on debian-policy.
I'm hardly a partici
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of
Dale> developers, set down by the "ruling body", sometimes referred to
Dale> as "the government". When those rules are viewed as more
Dale> important than the people participat
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj suggests on the one hand that there is too little control
Ian> over the Technical Committee, and then on the other hand that we
Ian> should elevate policy (which is currently decided on by fiat by
Ian> one person, in cases where the
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
>> similar. So, we have officially accepted and ratified the Policy
>> documents, I take it, and I just missed the party?
>>
>> If the project has indeed ``adopted'' the Policy docume
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 06:13:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> However, I have two concerns, which are related. One is that you seem
> to have a couple of ideas of your own about package ownership which
> you seem to want to push, despite there being IMO a clear consensus
> _against_ policy as
Someone (I don't have the list archive handy here so I can't remember who)
said on the firewalls list recently that security policy (but I think it
also is valid for debian policy) should be regarded as a cache of good,
well thought out decisions.
Policy represents the collective wisdom of a lot o
On 28 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I prefer the codification of rules that have to be followed
> and putting them out in the open, rather than continuing to depend on
> the judgement of a few good people in perpetuity. Some have called my
> view fascist.
>
> Codification o
On Wed, Apr 29, 1998 at 02:50:04PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > . Your public PGP key.
> >
> > - It has to be at least 1024 bits big.
>
> Mine is 768 bits long only. Do I have to generate a new one ?
If you would apply as new maintainer you would have to.
> > [1] That is James
Maybe some "clarification" would be useful here:
Martin Schulze writes:
> . Your public PGP key.
>
> - It has to be at least 1024 bits big.
Mine is 768 bits long only. Do I have to generate a new one ?
> [1] That is James Troup, Igor Grobman, Klee Dienes and myself
I could not
While we're talking about language issues and people not speaking
english: if we want Debian to be one day a valid choice for a lambda
user in a random country, we *will* have to work out some mechanism
that allows translated Descriptions: fields.
[I guess this issue does not really belong to deb
Christian Schwarz writes:
> Personally, I think the following would be `logical' :)
>
> We use direct-logical dependencies for direct-physical dependencies and
> we use indirect-logical dependencies for indirect-physical dependencies.
OK for the general inter-source-package case.
Now I
Guy Maor writes:
> Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This sounds like a mistake to me.
>
> I agree with Bob. The section 1 manpages should be in the appropriate
> package.
I second this. There is already a problem with translated section 1
manpages being in manpage- rat
Manoj suggests on the one hand that there is too little control over
the Technical Committee, and then on the other hand that we should
elevate policy (which is currently decided on by fiat by one person,
in cases where they choose to do so) to the status of law. This is
clearly inconsistent, and
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip> [Oxford English Dictionary] policy[1]: noun. prudent conduct,
> Philip> sagacity; course or general plan of action (to be) adopted by
> Philip> government, party, person etc.
>
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
> simila
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> [Oxford English Dictionary] policy[1]: noun. prudent conduct,
Philip> sagacity; course or general plan of action (to be) adopted by
Philip> government, party, person etc.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul> Since when is "The flight of the Bumble Bee" the right thing to
> Raul> do?
>
> Since I decided on it. What is to prevent me?
This epitomises the point you insist on missing here.
What prevents you, is YOU. If it turns out that you are a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please point the clause to me that I should use the help of a
> a dictionary to elucidate for my feeble intellect.
Policy: 1. a plan of action; way of management; "It is a poor policy to
promise more than you can do." "The tight-money policy was
20 matches
Mail list logo
