I know this thread is old but I felt obliged to comment. I have
sugically removed most of the messages. The snippets that remain
show, I think, how Manoj and Dale are speaking at cross-purposes, that
is, both seem to have problems understanding the other's position
fully, so argument is (was) go
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first I have heard of our Policy documents being
> goals, and I disagree.
Policy, by its very nature, lies somewhere between goals and procedures.
While the DFSG and Social contract are very good, they don't say a lot
about the tech
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> The point is: we've got a wide variety of goals; debian-policy
Raul> is a fleshed-out statement of those goals.
I think you are taking policy where it should not go. The
Social contract, the DFSG, and the ilk are a statement o
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your objection is to the use of the admittedly subjective criteria
> "if they feel it is a technically superior approach." Would the
> (slightly) more objective criteria "if they feel that strict adherence
> to the policy would jeopardize system integrity or
The text under discussion, as written by Philip Hands and Buddha Buck,
and posted in total by Manoj Srivastava is:
___
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the
clause in
question is still ongoing, in
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
>question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
>policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior
>approach.
Hmm.. this is actu
Hi,
This, I like.
__
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
policy violation if they feel it is a technica
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We do need a statement saying that the project has indeed adopted
>> this policy document, and the ``policy'' nomenclature is not a
>> ``mistake''.
Raul> We have one -- Ian made it. You've be
Hi,
I think we are getting nowhere fast.
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On 1 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Dale, I think no one is trying to be dictatorial about policy.
Dale> When you say the policy MUST be followed to the letter, I can
Dale> view t
On 1 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for
> Dale> policy to be clear, I will continue to urge caution when being
> Dale> dictatorial about policy.
>
> Dale, I thin
Ronald van Loon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find having a constitution sprung on me out of the blue, as well as the
> forming of a technical committee whose authority is unclear rather
> unsettling and contrary to the open way things have been handled so far -
> rather un-Debian, so to speak.
>
> You seemed (to my tired eyes) to be accusing people of objecting to:
>
> Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
> question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
> policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior appro
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do need a statement saying that the project has indeed adopted
> this policy document, and the ``policy'' nomenclature is not a
> ``mistake''.
We have one -- Ian made it. You've been objecting to it.
[Actually, we have many such statements, go
> I have generally found that policy is actually decided by
> discussion on the policy lists, and I do not agree with your
> characterization that the multi-maintianer issue had obviously not
> reached a consensus. There were objections, but (apart from you, who
> were silent) the objectors
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for
Dale> policy to be clear, I will continue to urge caution when being
Dale> dictatorial about policy.
Dale, I think no one is trying to be dictatorial about
policy. Ph
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, it was gfetting frustating, what with being in the middle of
>> two conversations, one with Dale and James, who are of the opinion
>> that policy is a guideline, and not a set of r
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 06:36:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for policy to be
> clear, I will continue to urge caution when being dictatorial about
> policy.
>
> I only disagree with Manoj's
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:06:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi,
> > >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I may have over reacted to being the lone voice crying in the
> > wilderness bit.
>
> I prefer to keep
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:06:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I may have over reacted to being the lone voice crying in the
> wilderness bit.
I prefer to keep away from such discussions until the air cleaned up a bit,
b
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it was gfetting frustating, what with being in the middle of
> two conversations, one with Dale and James, who are of the opinion
> that policy is a guideline, and not a set of rules adopted by the
> project
Again, please don't misrepresent my
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Manoj, Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I
Philip> apologise profusely (I was fairly tired at the time I wrote
Philip> it, so may have started to be rather more argumentative that I
Philip> meant to be)
W
Manoj,
Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I apologise profusely (I
was fairly tired at the time I wrote it, so may have started to be rather more
argumentative that I meant to be)
I think we actually hold fairly similar opinions about this subject. Did you
ever see my previou
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, this happens not to be the case. I was perfectly happy
> letting policy be policy until a well respected senior Debian
> developer made statements to the effect "Go right ahead and
> violate policy. Thats what I do"
>
> And anoth
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..
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
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
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
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why should you make your package conform?
Raul> Because it's the right thing to do.
If we all did the right thing we would not need a policy or a
constitution, would we now? This
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should you make your package conform?
Because it's the right thing to do.
> There is nothing that says you have to follow policy. Can the Tech
> committee make me do whatever they darned well please?
Well, they certainly can't make you read
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the law,
Manoj> and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down
Manoj> interpretations (which are referred to latter
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the
> law, and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down
> interpretations (which are referred to latter as and adjunct to prior
> law).
The committee does more than in
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. I do think this leads to a dilution of technical
>> discipline. And we already have way too many open bug reports;
>> people do not seem to want to fix ``real'' bugs, and ``mere''
>> p
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
> header. My posting was written before I saw the one that discussed
> open bugs. The "problem" that I was referring to was the disagreement
> between those who felt policy should be a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you think that these are the reasons?
>
> You might be right, but I'd like to know your reasons before agreeing
> that these are the primary reasons for bugs not being fixed.
There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
h
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the problem has arisen because 1) the policy documents
> have not sufficiently delineated the difference between prescriptive
> (shall, must) provisions and (strong) recommendations (should, must),
> and 2) because some (many?) developers disag
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. I do think this leads to a dilution of technical discipline. And
> we already have way too many open bug reports; people do not seem to
> want to fix ``real'' bugs, and ``mere'' policy reports would be seen
> as fluff.
Policy is a kind of stat
Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> I'm not a debian developer, merely an interested lurker (I will
Jules> almost certainly become a developer sometime). Apologies if
Jules> you think I'm speaking out of turn.
Jules> --On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 2:47 pm -0500 "Manoj Srivast
> Cc: Debian Developers list ,
> Debian policy list
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 27 Apr 1998 14:47:23 -0500
> Lines: 44
>
> Hi,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the
> law, and the techn
I'm not a debian developer, merely an interested lurker (I will almost
certainly become a developer sometime). Apologies if you think I'm speaking
out of turn.
--On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 2:47 pm -0500 "Manoj Srivastava"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>>>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi,
>>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 01:49:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava
Mark> wrote:
>> I understand that one may want a little more leeway than say the
>> policy documents are writ in stone (I personally prefer that), but
>> to deny that and make n
On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 01:49:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I understand that one may want a little more leeway than say
> the policy documents are writ in stone (I personally prefer that),
> but to deny that and make no mention of any mechanism of enforcement
> of policy is disqu
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> According to the proposed constitution, the policy documents do
Ian> not of themselves have any power to override a developer's
Ian> decisions. I think that to allow this would be to hand far too
Ian> much power to the policy editor(s),
According to the proposed constitution, the policy documents do not of
themselves have any power to override a developer's decisions. I
think that to allow this would be to hand far too much power to the
policy editor(s), so I think this situation should be preserved.
If Christian or anyone else
49 matches
Mail list logo
