(Please don't CC: me, I'm in the list) On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > [Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña] > > (For those who are not aware of this issue, please read #92810) > > There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be > treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not > improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified > version as an updated version of the standard. Standards get their > value from having a rigid procedure for updates and modifications. > Software do not.
I'm sure that's true. Unfortunately, we only have guidelines to accept software into Debian, and those are the DFSG. There is no such thing (yet) as a "Debian Free Documentation Guidelines", so we have to treat them with the only guidelines we have at the moment. I encourage you to read the Debian Documentation Draft Policy, available at http://www.debian.org/doc/ddp-policy/, which discusses some of the issues related to documentation, improve it and make it evolve into a proper policy for Debian. > > I believe this whole case of RFC standards are not confirming to The > Debian Free Software Guidelines display a complete lack of > understanding of the value of standards, and should be rejected. > Standards are not software, nor software manuals, and should not be > treated as such. Unfortunately you are misjudging here. Please read the bug reports. > > I haven't been following this case, and understand it might be late to > speak up against it, but believe it is about time the whole case is > stopped. The only way to "stop" this case is to produce a proper set of guidelines for documentation in Debian that would cover this (an other) cases, have a vote on it and get it approved as part of our own guidelines. If you want to help, you are welcome. Regards Javi
pgpVqHW4qi6wP.pgp
Description: PGP signature