Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> It's that things which people haven't invented yet concept which
Raul> has had me objecting to this concept of "policy must be
Raul> followed". If you look at policy as a set of *goals* rather
Raul> than a set of *rules* I think you'll
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wish you would talk to Raul directly. He points out that
> violations of policy shall be enforced thus:
> a) since policy is supposed to be authoritative for bug filers, and
> policy violation can be flagged as a bug.
> b) any disputes ab
Hi,
>>"Chris" == Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> 'Manoj Srivastava wrote:'
>> Well, I think if one is not constrained to follow policy, nor
>> required to do so, I see no reason to actually follow policy. Why
>> is it so bad to require policy to be followed?
Chris> How would yo
'Manoj Srivastava wrote:'
>
> Well, I think if one is not constrained to follow policy, nor
> required to do so, I see no reason to actually follow policy. Why is
> it so bad to require policy to be followed?
How would you enforce it? Why require something which your police
force cannot enf
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Are you being nasty to me because I FUBARed kernel-package or
James> what?
;-)
manoj
--
"We are on a threshold of a change in the universe comparable to the
transition from nonlife to life." Hans Moravec (on arti
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK. I give. And, on the principle that if you can't beat 'em, join
> 'em, I now agree with Jame Troup and Dale Scheetz and formally
> declare that Policy does not govern may packages from this point on,
> and shall close any policy related Bugs ASAP.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I give. And, on the principle that if you can't beat 'em,
> join 'em, I now agree with Jame Troup and Dale Scheetz and formally
> declare that Policy does not govern may packages from this point on,
> and shall close any policy related Bugs
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> 2) this is going way off topic, and has been quite tedious for
Philip> some time.
OK. I give. And, on the principle that if you can't beat 'em,
join 'em, I now agree with Jame Troup and Dale Scheetz and formally
declare
On 29 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of
> Dale> developers, set down by the "ruling body", sometimes referred to
> Dale> as "the government". When those rules are view
On 29 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of
> Dale> developers, set down by the "ruling body", sometimes referred to
> Dale> as "the government". When those rules are view
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of
Dale> developers, set down by the "ruling body", sometimes referred to
Dale> as "the government". When those rules are viewed as more
Dale> important than the people participat
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 06:13:12PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> However, I have two concerns, which are related. One is that you seem
> to have a couple of ideas of your own about package ownership which
> you seem to want to push, despite there being IMO a clear consensus
> _against_ policy as
On 28 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I prefer the codification of rules that have to be followed
> and putting them out in the open, rather than continuing to depend on
> the judgement of a few good people in perpetuity. Some have called my
> view fascist.
>
> Codification o
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You do have a tendency to jump to untenable positions. Who said
>> that we shall remove all packages with bugs or all packages that
>> fail to follow policy?
Raul> You made an ambiguous st
On 28 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is that such a bad thing, really? I would rather that the
> policy documents be corrected, and held as a set of rules htat
> have to be followed, woth an exception for the items that happen to
Debian is great and everything, but it
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do have a tendency to jump to untenable positions. Who
> said that we shall remove all packages with bugs or all packages that
> fail to follow policy?
You made an ambiguous statement. You made a statement about how policy
should have more
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> "Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> The constitution places no limitations on the developer's
Guy> authority with regard to their own work. Your version says that
Guy> the maintainers must follow policy.
Raul> Manoj Sriv
"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy> The constitution places no limitations on the developer's
> Guy> authority with regard to their own work. Your version says that
> Guy> the maintainers must follow policy.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is that such a bad thing,
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't see how this conflicts with the proposed
>> constitution. Please give me more info on that.
Guy> The constitution places no limitations on the developer's
Guy> authority with regard t
Most of Christian's message has been answered by other people. I'm
sorry if the following sounds combative and excessively personal, but
that's my general style. Christian should not take offence.
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy&qu
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see how this conflicts with the proposed constitution. Please give
> me more info on that.
The constitution places no limitations on the developer's authority
with regard to their own work. Your version says that the maintainers
must follow
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason why we need this requirement, is that we _have_ to detect
> orphaned packages by some automatic procedure. Note, that our
> distribution still contains packages from developers who left over a
> year ago!
I'm not disagreeing with you, neces
[ Not in a huge hurry to get back into this discussion, but there are
a couple of inaccuarcies here ]
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian QA group: The QA group is not a replacement for a
> maintainer. (I verified this by asking James Troup, who's, AFAIK, a
> member of the QA
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Christian Schwarz writes ("first proposal for a new maintainer policy"):
> > Duties of a maintainer
> > --
> >
> > Being maintainer of a package means the following: (note, that in
> >
Christian Schwarz writes ("first proposal for a new maintainer policy"):
> Duties of a maintainer
> --
>
> Being maintainer of a package means the following: (note, that in
> some cases a maintainer can not fulfill all these requirements--see
>
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a first draft of such a `maintainer policy.' It would be
> nice if people could give me feedback about it.
I like this proposal. It satisfies all my concerns with the previous
policy and although I wasn't enthused about the idea of a master
Just a thought...
All of you discussing this, should do several things: First, it seems
there is not consensus on the desired/actual strength of authority of
policy. THEREFORE: If this was not done before, ALL developers should
ratify policy. If it was, skip to the next step :)
Next, before just
Apologies are due for my not trimming the crossposting before; I meant to,
but I forgot to. As I understand things, there should be no crossposting
amongst the debian mailing lists.
If I make further comment, therefore, I will be careful to trim the
mail distribution to one of them only, and send
Hi,
What is this policy group you are talking about? AFAIK, there
is no such beast; there is just an public, open mailing list, which
is more and less than a formal Policy group.
The mailing list was formed to reduce clutter on the devel
list, which is rapidly becoming a catch-
On 21 Apr 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
>
> This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the
> while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual
> stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my
>
Hi.
Philip> Does that satisfy both sides ?
This satisfies me. Indeed, this has been my position all the
while, but evidently the joys of the fray and the intellectual
stimulation offered by the flow of reason has been a feast for my
soul, and, added to my evident inability to coherentl
> ``We are a bunch of 300 developers who maintain 2000 packages. Since
> everyone knows best how to solve upcoming problems and since everyone
> always agrees with others--or in case of disagreement we have a
> constitution--there is no need to specify who is working on what part.
> Everyone
On 21 Apr 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Every package in the distribution must have one or more maintainers
> > at a time (see below).
>
> That's not currently true. Orphaned packages are not typically
> removed from the unstable distribution. In
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Every package in the distribution must have one or more maintainers
> at a time (see below).
That's not currently true. Orphaned packages are not typically
removed from the unstable distribution. Instead their maintainer is
set to (orphaned) or
When thinking about section 2.3.2 (`Every package must have exactly one
maintainer at a time.') again, I noticed that we haven't defined the term
`maintainer' in policy yet. Since the idea of `maintainership' is central
to Debian's open development model, I think it's necessary to define this
term
35 matches
Mail list logo
