Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 have something a lot more Raul valuable. Look, policy is never going to be all encompassing. There shall always be errors of omission (things not yet invented). In which case, we enter into the ``let us get policy correcterd phase''. Either policy is correct, in which case we follow it, or it is incorrect, in which case we mend it, and then follow the mended policy. No goals. Just a set of mutating, adapting rules, which at any given time are our best effort. Raul When you arrive on a new job, do you expect to be told Raul procedures for thinking, for using the restroom, and for Raul walking? If you started advocating such things, what kind of Raul reception do you think you'd get? Now who is characterizing the policy writers as being stupid? Policy should dictate what the result are, for the most part, and not how it is done, except in cases where there is a clear path (do not write to files in /tmp unless you were careful in creating them; they could be linked to /etc/passwd). So policy should not contain things analogous to procedures for using the restroom. However, it would contain acceptable use definitions for the office machine. manoj -- A body on vacation tends to remain on vacation unless acted upon by an outside force. Carol Reichel Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 artificial intelligence) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
'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 enforce? I hope you don't wish to flog or flame violators? Since we are all conscientious people here, it seems that we would be better off using bugs and policy as a means of _persuading_ others to follow us. Not as something required. I think of policy and bugs as a cultural procedure to more formally advise developers and users on the collective wisdom of the Project. I agree that developing impediments to bad packages is important. But I don't see any value in trying to enforce those impediments. Humorous note: Whenever I get called to jury duty, I tell the judge why of course, I will take your pronouncements and the entire history of law under advisement in rendering my decision. For some odd reason they usually dismiss me at this point. I guess the judicial system is not as open-minded as I am :) -- Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Design Science Revolutionary http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Explorer in Universe ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | Dare to be Naïve -- Bucky Fuller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 you enforce it? Why require something which your Chris police force cannot enforce? I hope you don't wish to flog or Chris flame violators? 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 about the bug are to be resolved by the tech committee c) the tech committee looks at the policy manual for guidance. There. Chris Since we are all conscientious people here, it seems that we Chris would be better off using bugs and policy as a means of Chris _persuading_ others to follow us. Not as something required. Unless there is some reason for me to follow policy, I shan't. I shall use my own judgement, and if we have not adopted policy, then even the name is wrong. Chris I agree that developing impediments to bad packages is Chris important. But I don't see any value in trying to enforce Chris those impediments. Saying Policy has to be followed is not enforcement. We enforce violations exactly as you said -- with bug reports. I do confess to being surprised at the vehement opposition a simple sentence like policy should be followed, except for certain riders, which are I wonder. manoj -- It's a very valuable function and requirement that you're performing, so have a great day and keep a stiff upper lip. Dan Quayle, Prince William Sound, May 1989 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 about the bug are to be resolved by the tech committee c) the tech committee looks at the policy manual for guidance. There. Er.. and there's things like the checks the archive maintainer does before putting packages in the archive. And there's things like lintian, which people might want to run before submitting their packages (and other test suites which have yet to be invented). It's that things which people haven't invented yet concept which has had me objecting to this concept of policy must be followed. If you look at policy as a set of *goals* rather than a set of *rules* I think you'll have something a lot more valuable. Unless there is some reason for me to follow policy, I shan't. If you mean this destructively (analogy: as if policy is some kind of playpen which we keep you in so that you don't go trotting off and swallow some drain cleaner), then I really wish you'd leave the project. If you're really as technically competent as I think you are, however, then I wish you'd manage to wrap your mind around the concept of policy as a high-level expression of what the project is. I do confess to being surprised at the vehement opposition a simple sentence like policy should be followed, except for certain riders, which are I wonder. When you arrive on a new job, do you expect to be told procedures for thinking, for using the restroom, and for walking? If you started advocating such things, what kind of reception do you think you'd get? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 viewed as more Dale important than the people participating, that view is a Fascist Dale one. Please elucidate hw the laws of the united states, canada, the united kindom, or indeed, any european union country (pardon for missing your country here) does not fit the same criterion. I'd just like to make a couple of points here: 1) The UK does not have a constitution (we rely on the House of Lords to interpret Roman law, parliamentary law and precedent). Also, the subjects (not citizens) of the UK don't have too many (if any) rights defined in any formal way, so you really are not going to get very far citing this as an example of a set of rules being better than some people deciding. 2) this is going way off topic, and has been quite tedious for some time. Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 that Policy does not govern may packages from this point on, and shall close any policy related Bugs ASAP. I shall only use my own judgement from this point, and shall strongly advocate breaking all bounds of policy on debian-mentors. Let someone lese carry the torch for policy then. Good day. manoj -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. Beard Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 ASAP. I shall only use my own judgement from this point, and shall strongly advocate breaking all bounds of policy on debian-mentors. This is rather outragous. Please don't. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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. Are you being nasty to me because I FUBARed kernel-package or what? I said I'm sorry about that, and don't know what more I can do. :-( In any event I refer you to: URL:http://www.nl.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9804/msg00291.html where I said (among other things) ``For the record I don't really think it's a good idea to flout policy and I regret suggesting that.'' -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 of laws and rules is not fascism; on the contrary, it has served the masses more often than now. (Tha Magna Carta, and various and sundry constitutions around the world). It all started with Hammurabi codifying the laws, and limiting the power of the technical committee (I mean, the kings). The Documents you site are sets of rules that limit the power of government over its people, and are certainly not fascist. The Policy Statement is a set of rules for the behavior of developers, set down by the ruling body, sometimes referred to as the government. When those rules are viewed as more important than the people participating, that view is a Fascist one. Waiting is, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 participating, that view is a Fascist Dale one. Please elucidate hw the laws of the united states, canada, the united kindom, or indeed, any european union country (pardon for missing your country here) does not fit the same criterion. If I wish to go out and help myself to the extra ``petty'' cash lying around in banks, I shall soon find whether the laws of the land are considered more important than the people. I guess the ANSI C standard is fascist too. Hmm. manoj amused Is invoking hascism the same as invoking hitler in a discussion? -- When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become president; I'm beginning to believe it. Clarence Darrow Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 viewed as more Dale important than the people participating, that view is a Fascist Dale one. Please elucidate hw the laws of the united states, canada, the united kindom, or indeed, any european union country (pardon for missing your country here) does not fit the same criterion. The Constitution of the United States speaks of the freedoms of the individual and the responsibilities of the government. Many of the amendments further expound on the individual freedoms a citizen has from oppression by the powerful. If I wish to go out and help myself to the extra ``petty'' cash lying around in banks, I shall soon find whether the laws of the land are considered more important than the people. Those laws are for the protection of individuals from those more powerful groups who would deprive them of life, liberty, and ... I guess the ANSI C standard is fascist too. Hmm. If you are an individual composed of C code then it is ;-) manoj amused Is invoking hascism the same as invoking hitler in a discussion? I don't think so, but please define hascism anyway ;-) -- When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become president; I'm beginning to believe it. Clarence Darrow When I was in High School we learned that the Russian people voted in a democratic election where there was only one candidate for President provided on the ballot. Having already learned that our democracy was a two party system providing two candidates for the ballot, it has always seemed to me that the Russian system was more honest. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 to their own work. Your version says that Guy the maintainers must follow policy. 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 be in flux (and that means actively debateed at large, not just in the developers mind). The technical committee can then be called upon to interpret this document, and maybe amend it, if needed. 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 of laws and rules is not fascism; on the contrary, it has served the masses more often than now. (Tha Magna Carta, and various and sundry constitutions around the world). It all started with Hammurabi codifying the laws, and limiting the power of the technical committee (I mean, the kings). In the east, especially in china, the tendency was to institute a rigorous process of selection of people who would be the mandarins (judges), and trusting to their judgement for justice. In time, the process fell into decay, as it could always be influenced, a little at a time, by people in power, and with patience and influencing the promotions of like minded or corrupt officials, the system decayed into one fraught with nepotism and old boy networks. I do not think having laws that are written down and not subject to the change on the whim of the president (imagine a presidential amendment saying the president can not legally sexually harrass anyone?) or any other power that be is a good thing. I do not think this is fascist. And I do think this would be a welcome and open restriction on the powers of the technical committee (well,, in my opinion, certainly). manoj -- A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought. Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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, 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 be in flux (and that means actively debateed at large, not just in the developers mind). The technical committee can then be called upon to interpret this document, and maybe amend it, if needed. Let's say we have an no-exceptions that only packages which follow policy are accepted in our ftp archive. Does that mean that every time a bug is found, where the package violates policy, that the package should be removed from the archive? Let's say someone writes a program which runs packages through a series of tests and reveals a bunch of policy violations in many packages. What does the iron-clad rule do for us here? Let's say that in some of these cases any administrative fix would seriously damage the integrity of the package... What then? You've mentioned the code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta. Last time I checked, Hammurabi hadn't done much coding for the linux environment, and the Magna Carta doesn't even begin to address software issues. We've already got governments to deal with the business of dealing with unpleasant people. I think we're getting way off track if we try to deal with ourselves as if we're fulfilling that kind of role... [If you agree with me on this point, I won't have to go looking up references to the government Iceland used to have before the king of Norway invaded, for example.] I'd put a lot more stock in the motto of the folks who put the internet together: rough agreement, and working code. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 be in flux (and that means actively debateed at large, not just in the developers mind). The technical committee can then be called upon to interpret this document, and maybe amend it, if needed. Raul Let's say we have an no-exceptions that only packages which Raul follow policy are accepted in our ftp archive. Does that mean Raul that every time a bug is found, where the package violates Raul policy, that the package should be removed from the archive? 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 Let's say someone writes a program which runs packages through a Raul series of tests and reveals a bunch of policy violations in many Raul packages. What does the iron-clad rule do for us here? As with other bugs, we file bugs, and we can say that fix 'em, for they violate policy. There is no debate as in Show me where it says we follow policy. And Well, policy is bunkum anyway, I am closing this report. Also, people shall be more interested in making sure that there are no flaws in the policy, and everyone benefits from that. Raul Let's say that in some of these cases any administrative fix Raul would seriously damage the integrity of the package... What Raul then? Then obviously policy is flawed, and one acts to mend policy. The bug may or may not remain open, with a note that policy is in the process of being amended. If the developers is wrong, in the sense that the policy group (which, unlike the technical committee is an open group) and/or the committee rule in favour of current policy, then the maintainer shall have to fix the bug. Raul You've mentioned the code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Raul Carta. Last time I checked, Hammurabi hadn't done much coding Raul for the linux environment, and the Magna Carta doesn't even Raul begin to address software issues. I think this deserves little response. It is narrow minded to assume that one maynot learn from history; and such arrogance has often been the downfall of people, organizations, and nations. I prefer not to be blind. Note that I was not planning to impement the magna carta or rule that it applied directly to Debian (jeez, I thought I was dealing with intelligent people and this did not have to be spelled out. My mistake). Raul We've already got governments to deal with the business of Raul dealing with unpleasant people. Well, I could point out that goverments do not expel people from Debian, or constrain them to fiollow debian policy. What the hell does government have to do with this? Is the concept of the advantages of codification of rules too hard for you to digest? Raul I think we're getting way off track if we try to deal with Raul ourselves as if we're fulfilling that kind of role... [If you Raul agree with me on this point, I won't have to go looking up Raul references to the government Iceland used to have before the Raul king of Norway invaded, for example. Oh, god, this is too stupid to merit a response. manoj -- ARTICLE NUMBERING IS IRRELEVANT. ENCOURAGEMENT IS IRRELEVANT. YOU WILL BECOME ONE WITH THE BORG. Martin F. Rose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 power, for instance without really saying what that means. If you don't like my proposed implementation of your statements, perhaps you'd prefer to do so? [Aside: I interpret your You do have a tendency... statement to mean that I should have responded an earlier criticism of yours which I thought had no merit. I'd really rather not waste the time of the other debian developers on personal criticisms, but it looks like to achieve this I'll have to discuss the one you raise point-by-point. *sigh*] Raul Let's say someone writes a program which runs packages through a Raul series of tests and reveals a bunch of policy violations in many Raul packages. What does the iron-clad rule do for us here? As with other bugs, we file bugs, and we can say that fix 'em, for they violate policy. There is no debate as in Show me where it says we follow policy. And Well, policy is bunkum anyway, I am closing this report. I don't understand why you think this is going to be a problem. Frankly, I don't care to keep talking past you, so I'll stop here. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 is huge and decentralized. Read the write-ups about O'Reilly's sumit. They all thought that centralized control was an ingredient in their individual succeses. Perhaps Debian can get by without it. But without and central control AND no fast rules, it will probably degenerate. Strict rules and route for appeals for flexibility is the way to go. Rules are the only central authority holding things together. (Who holds the power to make rules is another matter.) John Lapeyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 statement. You made a statement about how Raul policy should have more power, for instance without really Raul saying what that means. Mea Culpa. I just want a statement somewhere that says, by and large, Debian packages Must follow the policy, with the exception that packages may, at the developers discretion, be in violation pending an amendment to a relevant section of the policy documents. In other words, a flaw in policy need not be followed, but that means that active steps be taken to amend the flaw in policy. Failure to conform to policy is reason enough for a bug report (this is the case in Ian's proposal as well); in case the policy is under discussion, the bug may remain open, or be ``forwarded'' to debian-policy. Raul [Aside: I interpret your You do have a tendency... statement Raul to mean that I should have responded an earlier criticism of Raul yours which I thought had no merit. Umm, no. I did not mean that. I don't even know what you are referring to here. Raul I'd really rather not waste the time of the other debian Raul developers on personal criticisms, but it looks like to achieve Raul this I'll have to discuss the one you raise Raul point-by-point. *sigh*] Umm, please address personal criticism to me by personal mail, if you wish not to waste the lists time. We may be able to work things out, though I feel we are in the middle of major miscommunication. Raul Let's say someone writes a program which runs packages through a Raul series of tests and reveals a bunch of policy violations in many Raul packages. What does the iron-clad rule do for us here? As with other bugs, we file bugs, and we can say that fix 'em, for they violate policy. There is no debate as in Show me where it says we follow policy. And Well, policy is bunkum anyway, I am closing this report. Raul I don't understand why you think this is going to be a problem. 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? manoj -- I have been poor and I have been rich. Rich is better. Sophie Tucker Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 a message like this one to let possibly interested others know where the thread went. I am making a comment; I'm choosing debian-policy as the list. See it there. -Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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 soul, and, added to my evident inability to coherently and fluently put forth my opinions in a convincing fashion has led to much of the conglagration on these lists. Manoj, Thank you for putting this back on development. I would never have seen it otherwise. BTW, you didn't conflagrate all by yourself ;-) Phil Now clearly, these are not the views that are actually held by Phil either side, which seem to come out as something closer to: Phil A: Policy should be adhered to, except where (in the Phil maintainers opinion) it would be more appropriate to Phil something else (on technical grounds) Phil B: Policy should be correct and up to date, in which case Phil there should be no reason to allow exceptions, because Phil things that are justified exceptions should be included in Phil policy. Phil Is that fair ? donning flame proof armor ;-) Sure! Close enough (I would be in favour of amending policy to be in line with correct behaviour too). Phil These are not nearly as far apart as you guys are making out, Phil and could be combined to say something like: Phil Policy should be adhered to. Phil In cases where the policy conflicts with what they consider to Phil be best for their package, they can chose to ignore policy, as Phil long as they also attempt to have policy changed by discussing Phil it on debian-policy. Phil If this discussion results in a change in policy, well and good. Phil If the discussion concludes that they were wrong, they must Phil fix the bug that they have introduced into their package by Phil ignoring policy. Phil While the discussion is under way on debian-devel, there is Phil little point submitting bug reports pointing out the policy Phil violation, unless that violation results in behaviour that Phil could damage a user's system if they installed the package. Phil In any case, if a maintainer insists on uploading buggy Phil packages, against the consensus of the Debian developers, Phil various sanctions, up to and including expulsion from the Phil project are always available. Phil Of course, if the policy included a: Phil ``Policy may by ignored while the clause in question is under Phil discussion'' Phil clause, then the policy could also a have a Phil ``Policy MUST be obeyed at all times'' Phil clause, since the exclusion would be in the policy ;-) Phil Does that satisfy both sides ? Well, we are at least moving in the right direction ;-) First, some things that I think haven't been said yet (if that is possible). The Policy Statement is a, now not so recent, attempt at writing down the Debian Policy that, up until then, was known to the developers by shared knowledge. The Policy Statement was made necessary as a result of an enlarged development community, in order to insure that the previously shared knowledge would be available to all. It should be understood that, as a written document which governs how we do development, this Statement will be under constant modification. In recognition of this fact, the Policy Group should provide a well defined method for putting a proposal before the Policy Group that does not involve becoming a member of the group. And finally, there are two classes of bug in the Policy Statement, only one of which was been under discusion. We have spoken reams about those items in the Policy Statement that are broken, while ignoring the other sort of problem: the one where policy doesn't say anything about the issue. With the above in mind, I would like to see the first sentance: Policy should be adhered to. expanded into a more descriptive and somewhat less restrictive statement, like: The Policy Statement contained herein defines the details of a properly constructed Debian package. When it becomes necessary for a particular package to behave counter to policy, the package maintainer should suggest that the Policy Statement be modified to reflect the special needs of the package. I might also add: When the Policy Statement does not say anything, or is unclear about a particular issue, maintainers may ask the Policy Group for clarification. This is actually probably going to be shared between the Policy Group and the Technical Committee, which is why I didn't include it outright. In addition, I would like to see policy items identified with some severity levels. Something like: criticalViolations of these policies will result in packages that either don't work, or cause another package to fail. cosmeticViolations of these policies create clutter or confusion
Re: first proposal for a new maintainer policy
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-all of everything (I routinely see -user questions on -devel, which I am far less likely to answer than the same question on -user). I would strongly urge anyone who is interested in what goes into the Policy manual to keep an eye on that mailing list; I personally priritize -policy higher than -devel, as the former has postings of more interest to me. Since this is rteally a meta discussion, I think it is right to discuss this on both -policy and -devel, vefore anyone accuses me of gratuitous cross-posting. manoj -- Let me play with it first and I'll tell you what it is later. Miles Davis Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
