> 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 seem to be coming around to having on > maintainers address on the package.
> Moreever, in absence of a technical committee to help resolve > issues, fiat by a balanced policy manager was the best we could do. > I am, personally, appalled at the attacks on the Policy > manager. For the most part, in my opinion, he has been doing a good > job I quite agree. He seems to be a reasonable fellow. Ian> to the status of law. This is clearly inconsistent, > No ot os not. Policy can be influenced by anyone joining the > policy group, which is open to everyone. The technical committee is a > cabal which the unwashed masses have little say in selecting. Maybe I am being naive, but I thought policy constitutes at the very least a set of handy guidelines for a Debian developer. Of course, for a package to be (and remain) successful it needs to be maintained properly, but to be considered for inclusion it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask a package maintainer to follow these guidelines, if only for sake of consistency - especially when those guidelines have been evolved from reasonable debate (and are open to change, by the same method). Presently, policy -is- open to change, because there is this list. Now there's talk of a 'constitution' and a 'technical committee' whose status and function is to me rather unclear. While the policy list is maybe not really the appropriate list to discuss a constitution nor to discuss the functioning of 'governing bodies', one would expect at least a separate list to discuss matters of change in the way internal matters are handled. For lack of a better place, I would say the policy list would be the place to discuss these, because, in a sense, this definitely influences any guidelines handed to Debian developers. At the very least, they would have to be non-contradictory! I do not, at present, have time to subscribe to the developer's list, but I am still interested in the way Debian handles things on a more global level. That's why I read the policy list. I would therefore request to either create a new list, meant for matters related to how Debian is being run, like a 'constitution' or a 'technical committee' or to move discussion of meta-matters to the policy list, as this is not really a -technical- issue and it is my understanding that the -devel list is a technical list. But correct me if I am wrong. 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. Ronald -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]