Le Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 08:12:51PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
> > Question
> >
> > I'm happy to hear you have ideas for a smoother policy process. Could
> > you suggest a few? Maybe we can batch them up and make a gene
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Question
>
> I'm happy to hear you have ideas for a smoother policy process. Could
> you suggest a few? Maybe we can batch them up and make a general
> resolution. :)
I think the problems with the current process fall into roughly the
#x27;m happy to hear you have ideas for a smoother policy process. Could
you suggest a few? Maybe we can batch them up and make a general
resolution. :)
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2012/07/msg00037.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/
perience has been that the policy process works pretty well when
> a policy delegate is involved in the discussion. Seconds for good
> proposals are not hard to find, most parties have good faith, and the
> result is that the proposals that get adopted are well reviewed and
> carefully tho
Disclaimer: the below is a half-baked long-term proposal for a process
change. If you're wondering about how to do useful work today, please
ignore it. But comments welcome.
Hi,
My experience has been that the policy process works pretty well when
a policy delegate is involved i
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess does not appear to be
> comprehensive. In particular, I note no description of the 'normative'
> usertag.
>
> Please update the page.
This is now updated for the changes that I made yesterday. I'm writing a
mor
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Clint Adams wrote:
> http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess does not appear to be
> comprehensive. In particular, I note no description of the
> 'normative' usertag.
>
> Please update the page.
And it would also be a good idea to create a page in
http://wiki.debian.org/T
http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess does not appear to be
comprehensive. In particular, I note no description of the
'normative' usertag.
Please update the page.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> I have since used that framework, and I am proposing expanding
> >> the user tags and using the user debian-policy@lists.debian.org as the
> >> d
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I have since used that framework, and I am proposing expanding
>> the user tags and using the user debian-policy@lists.debian.org as the
>> default user. I have expanded on the scheme used by
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is going to be a long email. I am contemplating the
> holiday festivities, and am getting into the zen mode for making
> traditional egg nog. Where I live, traditional egg nog means
> contemplating very old Kentucky straight bourbon
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have since used that framework, and I am proposing expanding
> the user tags and using the user debian-policy@lists.debian.org as the
> default user. I have expanded on the scheme used by Russ, to better
I suggest [EMAIL PROTECTED] as us
nf, I gave a talk titled: "The Policy and RC bug
goulash", which can be found at
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/talks/policy_change_process/policy_and_rc_bugs.pdf.
The talk deals with two things: the policy rewrite, and the changes to
the policy process itself. I have already
: #375728).
* Bug fix: "debian-policy: typo", thanks to Peter Samuelson
(Closes: #376104).
* Bug fix: "debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] maintainer scripts must not be
world writable", thanks to Kari Pahula
thing.
>
> > Some of those currently open bugs against the policy package, like your
> > ~ in version numbers, really shouldn't be a problem to get into the
> > policy. I don't think anybody has a problem with it. I think it's just
> > that no new version
ur
> > ~ in version numbers, really shouldn't be a problem to get into the
> > policy. I don't think anybody has a problem with it. I think it's just
> > that no new version of the policy has been made yet.
>
> Well, policy-process is still shipped with the debian
shouldn't be a problem to get into the
> policy. I don't think anybody has a problem with it. I think it's just
> that no new version of the policy has been made yet.
Well, policy-process is still shipped with the debian-policy package, and
my experience in the past is that w
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.1
Severity: minor
|proposals after a a sufficiently long period
^
|wasting peoples time
^^^
Discussion may be intiated
initiated
no restriction of their participattion the
are/doc/debian-policy, if
>> it is accepted and has been established through the official policy
>> process.
>
> There is no `official policy process'. Manoj has (very wisely IMO)
> abolished the previous bureaucracy and returned to editing the manual
> according to his
ebian-policy: The section 11.8.5 needs some
clarifications", thanks to Robert Luberda(Closes: #365356).
* Bug fix: "11.8.7: X11R7 puts headers in /usr/include/X11", thanks to
Drew Parsons (Closes: #365510).
*
system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> See bug#72335 (accepted). It'll fall over badly if this behaviour is
> not honoured (which it is by make).
I think we found a flaw in the policy pro
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.2.2
Severity: minor
In http://localhost/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.html/ch1.html#s1.1
I see "1.1 Guideliens for policy change proposals", the first word
should be "Guidelines".
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew> Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some
Matthew> other criteria?
>>
>> Right now, if I arrange for images to be referenced in
>> /var/www/, they are acce
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Matthew> Based on the proposal's use of http://localhost/, or some
> Matthew> other criteria?
>
> Right now, if I arrange for images to be referenced in
> /var/www/, they are accessible elsewhere (I did something like that
> when I used to m
>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Matthew> personally am particularly interested in #89867, which has
Matthew> been turned into an amendment, but hasn't had any sort of
Matthew> discussion or acceptance.
>>
>> Sinc
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Matthew> personally am particularly interested in #89867, which has
> Matthew> been turned into an amendment, but hasn't had any sort of
> Matthew> discussion or acceptance.
>
> Since the web browsers have not implemented the requisite
> cha
>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> Policy process section 3.4 doesn't seem to make any mention
Matthew> of how a proposed amendment gets accepted or rejected. I
Well, rough consensus is one criteria. Not making a
`
y 2002 15:00:14 -0400
From: "Laurence J. Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: missing index.html for debian-policy-process
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charse
Policy process section 3.4 doesn't seem to make any mention of how a
proposed amendment gets accepted or rejected. I personally am particularly
interested in #89867, which has been turned into an amendment, but hasn't
had any sort of discussion or acceptance. I for one would like
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: minor
File: /usr/share/doc-base/debian-policy-process
The doc-base entry for debian-policy-process lists index.html as the
Index, but the file is missing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy-process.html$ ls
ch1.html ch2
On 20010302T114353+0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> We actually should consider another change: something can not become policy
> until there is an existing implementaiton. This rule is also used in the RFC
> process, and works great there.
This particular amendment does not require an implementati
Package: debian-policy
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> See bug#72335 (accepted). It'll fall over badly if this behaviour is
> not honoured (which it is by make).
I think we found a flaw in the policy process here: policy changes should be
cc'ed to the relevant package mainta
ECTED]>;
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaleh by one.willcodeforfood.via.net with local (Exim 3.22 #1
(Debian))
id 14Re4A-0001Bj-00; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:44:10 -0800
From: Sean Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECT
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.0.0
Severity: minor
flush out old proposal after a a suuficiently long period of time
There should be one 'u' and two 'f's in sufficiently.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux one 2.4.0 #1 Fri Jan 5 22:24:46
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> It makes a certain amount of sense that we need a smarter
Anthony> tool to handle open issues against policy than open bugs
Anthony> against most packages. To me, anyway.
Let us see what this mechanism would need to do.
a) It should allo
e seemed to be very little of any use and a lot of noise.
> I think the problem you perceive would be alliviated by making
> some changes in the BTS itself.
I agree with Santiago here. Automating away the annoying bits of the
policy process seems like a much better solution than getting people
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Policy process"):
>>
>> Each document, or part of a document, has one or more editors
>> within that maintainer team. Only the editor(s) responsible
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Policy process"):
> Hmm. I'll reiterate: I find your proposal very cathedral in nature;
> indeed, I found it quite fuedalistic. And it is a sizeable increase
> in bureaucratic hassles:
>
> Each document, or part of a doc
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [...]
>
> I've now done a bit of research about this, prompted by the fact that
> when I visited -policy in my newsreader today for the first time in a
> few days there seemed to be very little of any use and a lot of noise.
> [...]
Since I'm in part res
Hi,
Here is my take on what we need to do to rejuvenate policy
creation (which is quite moribund, in case you had not noticed, since
I have stopped working on it pending the DPL's delegation of power).
a) we need to keep using the BTS to record what's going on, and not
let things die
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Policy process"):
>> I also object, I find Manoj's argument about 20 some-odd policy jobs to be
>> a rather compelling reason to think this is a bad idea
Jason Gunthorpe writes ("Re: Policy process"):
> I also object, I find Manoj's argument about 20 some-odd policy jobs to be
> a rather compelling reason to think this is a bad idea. .
You'll have to remind me. It's some time since we had this discussion
the first
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think we should implement the process I sent out in a draft a week
> or two ago. No-one seemed to object very much (though perhaps people
> were just tired, and Manoj probably still objects).
I also object, I find Manoj's argument about 20 some-odd po
Ian Jackson writes ("Policy process"):
> I think we should implement the process I sent out in a draft a week
> or two ago. No-one seemed to object very much (though perhaps people
> were just tired, and Manoj probably still objects).
I forgot to attach a copy. H
Right, we just saw 5 people post `me too' because of the current
policy process.
I think we should implement the process I sent out in a draft a week
or two ago. No-one seemed to object very much (though perhaps people
were just tired, and Manoj probably still objects).
If we are to impl
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:57:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In the IRC discussion I said I would write up a proposal, so here it
> is. I've used the word `standards' everywhere instead of `policy'; I
> think this would be a good renaming, because it would emphasise that
> we're trying to do tec
In the IRC discussion I said I would write up a proposal, so here it
is. I've used the word `standards' everywhere instead of `policy'; I
think this would be a good renaming, because it would emphasise that
we're trying to do technical things rather than politics ...
DRAFT
Standards Process
Hi,
The updated policy update process, which is what we use
currently, has been updated, then language changed from the
proposal document, and clarified (the BTS section is no longer an
add-on, but incorporated in the document itself.
Hopefully, this makes the process less opaq
48 matches
Mail list logo
