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
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 weaken
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 of our
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
'From Bill Leach [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Manoj;
The 'Social Contract' and the 'DFSG' are indeed goal statements. However,
they are goal statements of a very imprecise nature. They are not 'working
documents' they are rather more like 'lofty ideals'. Ideals that don't
necessarily mean precisely
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
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 rules adopted
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. Phillip
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 did
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 look
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.
For
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 think no one is
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 that as
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 been objecting to
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
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 actually
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 another
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
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)
Well, it
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
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,
but for the
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 away from such
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 is a weak
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 also
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 painful
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
similar.
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
similar. So, we
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
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 documents, I have
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 they choose
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,
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 significance of the
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 statement
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 disagree
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
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 binding
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''
policy reports
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 as and
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 the
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), so I
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
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 no mention of
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] writes:
Cc: Debian Developers list debian-devel@lists.debian.org,
Debian policy list debian-policy@lists.debian.org
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
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 Srivastava
45 matches
Mail list logo
