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
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Copying the debian-policy list, since this conversation is basically about
> that.
>
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think policy changes need to be seconded. We have a policy team
> > that should decide on w
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:43:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think policy changes need to be seconded. We have a policy team
> > that should decide on what comes in policy and what not. Although, it
> > more looks like it's just 1 person d
>>"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
``significant'' number of packages insta
>>"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
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:42:34PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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
>>"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. Here you go:
DRAFT
Standards
19 matches
Mail list logo
