On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 02:27:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I think this is indeeed diluting the FHS. As I said, we must
> create our own, rather than adding a rider onto a widely accepted
> standard. It does not matter if we indeed document it.
>
> If we do indeed create
On Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 05:28:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I personally would not like to allow a standard I create to be
> readily modifiable, for what that matters. If you got ideas, feed 'em
> to me -- and I see about getting them into the standard.
Mmmh. I consider the Deb
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [Everybody following a different standard would make standards
pointless.>
Guy> Yes, of course everybody will agree with you there.
Guy> But isn't innovation important? If I come up w
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
> already seven).
What is wrong with using procmail for that? I have the following in
my procmailrc:
:0:
* ^X-Mailing-L
Hi,
>>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> I would still like some statement to be made in regards to
Buddha> amendments to the amendments. I do not mind the "informal"
Buddha> amendment style that was discussed (author listens to
Buddha> discussion, and submits an ame
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> I happen to find the "technical" vs "non-technical" distinction fuzzy
> and not particularly helpful.
The proposed constitution makes the distinction. In 4.1 "Together,
the Developers may ... issue *nontechnical* policy documents and
statements." Lat
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> I see a little problem here. How and who will decide that an issue is
Santiago> technical or it is not?
The people on the policy list do, possibly with help from the
tech committee? This proposal is about everyday
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Everybody following a different standard would make standards
> pointless.]
Yes, of course everybody will agree with you there.
But isn't innovation important? If I come up with a new modified
standard, and prominently plaster big warnings all ove
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you contending that policy be only changed via a general
> resolution?
Of course not.
> The 4 developer veto makes the policy amendment a formal General
> Resolution.
Yes, that's what I was alluding when I said it was unconstitutional.
It
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Often, i.e., the TEI DTDs (a standard, and a DTD, like most
Adam> DTDs), the licensing on the standard says that the file name
Adam> and the title of the document must be changed if the standard
Adam> is modified. This is sane and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes:
> Daniel, for starters, this should probably be raised as a bug against
> debian-policy, just to make sure taht we don't forget about it. We
> are underway in debian-policy on finding a new way to maintain policy.
> Right now, there basically *is* no pol
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy> Now I'm confused. I thought we were talking only about technical
> Guy> proposals? Either way the rules for who can propose, issue,
> Guy> etc. technical and non-technical proposals are alread
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy> If standards can't be modified, how can they be improved? I think
> Guy> there is gain in allowing standards to be modified. Modified
> Guy> standards must be distributed with a prominent noti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > In the meantime, I think we should start thinking about the splitting of
> > debian-devel-changes, creating lists for every architecture (we have
>
> Hmm, I object to "in the meantime" since this ensures that this f
Hi,
[removed -devel from the cc]
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Uh. I thought you were considering using the BTS for tracking
Adam> open policy topic, both using "wishlist" severity as well as
Adam> retitling to indicate current status. As for the date
Ad
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, I do not think that standards documents (and
>> possibly other categories [personal opinions come to mind]) benefit
>> from being modifiable. In fact, making a modifiable docu
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Umm, how does the tech committee figure in this? I meant to
>> say that say, some one proposes an amendment. After discussion,
>> people are strongly divided, and it shall take 4 people to
Daniel, for starters, this should probably be raised as a bug against
debian-policy, just to make sure taht we don't forget about it. We
are underway in debian-policy on finding a new way to maintain policy.
Right now, there basically *is* no policy editor. Submitting a bug
will make sure that s
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Umm, how does the tech committee figure in this? I meant to
> say that say, some one proposes an amendment. After discussion,
> people are strongly divided, and it shall take 4 people to send this
> to the general developer body. Where does t
I already filter these with some mailing filtering rules.
My mailagent .rules looks like this:
X-Loop: /debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org/i { REJECT CHANGES };
Subject: /\(.*source.*\)/ { SAVE Debian.debian-devel-changes.source };
Subject: /\(.*hurd-i386.*\)/ { SAVE Debian.debian-devel-ch
(evil me is still not on -policy...)
On Sat, Aug 08, 1998 at 07:30:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> [ I've Bcc:ed debian-devel. Please answer only to debian-policy. Thanks ].
>
> The "new upload procedure", approved some time ago, is already in the bug
> list for ftp.debian.org (#17525), so I h
When I took over fvwm95 four or so months ago, I found, among other
various bugs filed against it, a bug stating that the load of .xpm
files shipped with fvwm95 should be moved to
/usr/X11/include/X11/pixmaps - now, this was an easy bug to fix and so
I did just that: moved the .xpm files and close
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> This proposal does not change policy. One of the first things
> to be done, of this proposal passes, shall be the policy change that
> would codify it.
Actually, I do see this proposal as changing policy. I am willing to
Hi,
>>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> When August 22nd rolls around, and a consensus has been
Buddha> reached (which it looks like it will), who will make the necessary
Buddha> changes (such as eliminating the "enacting language", renumbering the
Buddha> sections
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How about this: If four or more developers call for a hold on
>> the proposal, and move to send the proposal to the larger developer
>> body as a SRP, then, at the proposers discretion, th
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes. One will. Consensus means everyone. It's that simple. (It doesn't
>> mean everyone agrees in their hearts, of course - it just means that they
>> have been persuaded by the other camp to
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> [Recipients stripped to the policy group]
Adam> You talk here and in the proposed policy of a "formal
Adam> objection". What does it exactly mean, a "formal objection".
Adam> I think all it means is that a debian developer simp
Hi,
>>"Adam" == Adam P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> I find two problems with Manoj's proposal.
Adam> Unlike before, when the policy editor gathered in issues
Adam> which, in his view, were candidates for inclusion in
Adam> policy, I propose that issues are brought u
28 matches
Mail list logo
