Bug#707851: Debian Menu Systems : Implementation of the TC decision

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:56:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst  writes:
> 
> 
> Wouter> So, I'm with Guillem on this one.
> 
> 
> Wouter> But _forbidding_ maintainers who want to from shipping a
> Wouter> second file, if that somehow makes the experience of menu
> Wouter> users better than what the fdo menu would have given them?
> Wouter> Sorry, but that seems petty and silly.
> 
> OK.
> Then why don't you build consensus behind a patch to do that?
> The TC's decision can be changed by the normal policy process.
> If you can get people to agree with a proposal that permits both
> ..desktop and .menu files then you can replace the TC decision.

Per §4.1.4, Only through a 2:1 supermajority GR. Alternatively, it could
also by replaced by the TC voting a second time on the subject, changing
or clarifying its original decision (an outcome I would favour, but hey,
I'm not a member of the TC).

> For myself, I think that forcing a transition to .desktop will create a
> longer Debian long-term.

[assuming you meant 'better' rather than 'longer']

Yes, I agree with that, and I support that goal. By stating that the
absense of a .desktop file for a graphical program should be considered
a bug, and that the absense of support for the fdo menu in a window
manager should be considered a bug as well, you would have forced such a
transition, and that would/should have been enough.

In contrast, the current TC decision goes one step further, and I think
it goes a bridge too far.

> I believe that the TC's approach provides a useful push for that in
> this situation.  I realize that it is a fairly forceful approach and
> it's not something that Debian does often.

Exactly, and that is one of the major reasons why I think it's a bad
decision.

(for reference: I'm not angry here, just critical and sceptical)

Regards,

Wouter

-- 
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer

  -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26

Bug#707851: Debian Menu Systems : Implementation of the TC decision

[Sam Hartman]

> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst  writes:

Wouter> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:56:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst  writes:
>> 
>> 
Wouter> So, I'm with Guillem on this one.
>> 
>> 
Wouter> But _forbidding_ maintainers who want to from shipping a
Wouter> second file, if that somehow makes the experience of menu
Wouter> users better than what the fdo menu would have given them?
Wouter> Sorry, but that seems petty and silly.
>> 
>> OK.  Then why don't you build consensus behind a patch to do
>> that?  The TC's decision can be changed by the normal policy
>> process.  If you can get people to agree with a proposal that
>> permits both ..desktop and .menu files then you can replace the
>> TC decision.

Wouter> Per §4.1.4, Only through a 2:1 supermajority
Wouter> GR. Alternatively, it could also by replaced by the TC
Wouter> voting a second time on the subject, changing or clarifying
Wouter> its original decision (an outcome I would favour, but hey,
Wouter> I'm not a member of the TC).

Normally that would be true.

However, the TC included the following language in its decision:

   6. Further modifications to the menu policy are allowed using the
  normal policy modification process.


My understanding is that Keith, Don and I at least intended that
language to allow the policy process to change or replace our decision.
I've run into three people now who did not find that clear.  If the
policy editors asked us to clarify that part of the decision I would
support doing so.  If the policy editors find that language clear enough
that they would feel comfortable merging a proposal that went against
the TC decision if it got enough seconds, etc, then I would find the
current language sufficient.