Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: PROPOSAL: A mechanism for updating Debian Policy
documents"):
> [Guy Maor:]
> > Yes, but if consensus cannot be achieved then the technical committee
> > may make a decision.
>
> Only on Technical issues.
No:
6. Technical com
> 1.2. People Seconding the Proposal
> --
>
> Well, since Michael Alan Dorman and Richard Braakman have volunteered
> to serve on the policy maintainer team, I think they have no objection
> to being seconds.
>
> 1. Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL
> The fact that I may be a policy maintainer does in no way
> lessen my ability, as a Debian developer, to send in a proposal to
> amend policy.
Right, to get us past any circular arguments on this front, I'm uploading a
New Maintainer Upload of debian-policy, including a few minor bug fi
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:
> 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
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
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
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
> 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
Adam P. Harris said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Buddha> I think this proposal is in itself an example of this.
> >
> > Umm, no. This is basically a procedural proposal, and it sets
> > policy. This is not the
[Recipients stripped to the policy group]
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha> How will consensus be determined? Will one opposing
> Buddha> developer be able to force a deadlock? If not, how many?
>
> Human jud
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, the proposal shall
> be sent to the general developers bo
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 allow the motion forward).
Yes, but if consensus cannot be achi
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 08-Aug-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think that with the four volunteers that we have already,
> > all of whom are seasoned veterans, the situation seems to be under
> > control, and we can let the selection process be as informal as it is
>
Hi,
I have been thinking about the issues that you raised.
Traditionally, the policy group, under the aegis of the Policy
editor, worked on the basis of a consensus derived in the group. This
proposal merely removes the need of a dedicated policy editor, and
passes the debian package
On 08-Aug-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think that with the four volunteers that we have already,
> all of whom are seasoned veterans, the situation seems to be under
> control, and we can let the selection process be as informal as it is
> now.
More or less the way the Technical Committ
On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> > 3.2. Deadlines for Tabling Discussions
> > --
> >
> ...
> >
> > If a consensus is reached by the policy group, then the maintainers
> > shall enter the amendment into the Policy document, announce the
>
Hi,
>>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> In general, I liked the technical aspects of the proposal. I
Buddha> don't like the "voice" of the proposal, however. To me, it
Buddha> reads like a mixture of technical details, personal opinion,
Buddha> and rationale for the
In general, I liked the technical aspects of the proposal. I don't
like the "voice" of the proposal, however. To me, it reads like a
mixture of technical details, personal opinion, and rationale for the
changes. I would prefer it if the technical content was decidedly
separate from the non-t
Hi,
>>"Darren" == Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Darren> How will these 4-5(or 8) people be selected?
Informally? ;-) Seriously, though, the policy editor was
appointed by the project leader, but that position had a serious
impact on policy; the editor was responsible for se
On 07-Aug-98 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I propose we select/install a group of people who have access to the
> CVS repository for the Policy documents; however, this set of people
> behave more like maintainers rather than authors/editors. This group
> does not create policy, not
27 matches
Mail list logo
