Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Sam Hartman]

> "Bill" == Bill Allombert  writes:

Bill> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 12:07:02AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> The GIT repository is only a tool for the policy editors. Due to
>> the decentralized nature of GIT, anybody can clone it anyway and
>> send a pull request.  Pushing to it directly is uselessly
>> interfering with the policy editors job.

Bill> Hello,

Bill> To allow everybody to forget about this infortunate accident
Bill> and let us continue to maintain the policy, I have reset the
Bill> master branch to the last commit before Charles intervention,
Bill> which is 282bd883. If you have already pulled Charles changes,
Bill> please reset your master branch.

When will you be merging in  ba679bff as adopted into Debian policy by
 the TC decision?


--Sam

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 12:07:02AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> The GIT repository is only a tool for the policy editors. Due to the
> decentralized nature of GIT, anybody can clone it anyway and send a pull 
> request.
> Pushing to it directly is uselessly interfering with the policy editors job.

Hello,

To allow everybody to forget about this infortunate accident and let us continue
to maintain the policy, I have reset the master branch to the last commit
before Charles intervention, which is 282bd883. If you have already pulled
Charles changes, please reset your master branch.

However I have created a branch master-charles with Charles changes, so that
they are not lost.

Sorry for the trouble,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Sam Hartman]

> "Bill" == Bill Allombert  writes:


Bill>  seems to have decided that the menu policy discussion
Bill> should take precedence over over issues (multiarch, systemd,
Bill> etc.) that are much more important.

Hi.  I do expect to see the part of the menu policy where the TC adopted
specific language in a version of the policy released reasonably soon.
I think it would be reasonable for any debian developer to NMU policy to
implement this change, uploading say to delayed/7 to give the editors a
chance to comment.

I do agree that the area where the TC did not adopt specific language
requires a proposal that reaches multiple seconds.  I'd expect the
policy editors to apply that patch reasonably promptly once it does get
those seconds; I do agree that this issue has reached a level of
priority where it is important to promptly put it behind us.  I don't
expect the policy editors to drive the discussion, but yes, I do expect
them to promptly reflect any conclusion the process reaches.


pgpao3pEeoikC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le dimanche, 4 octobre 2015, 00.07:02 Bill Allombert a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 10:55:38AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > For the avoidance of any doubt, I agree that committing the diff was
> > premature, although I assume it wasn't done in bad faith. Sorry for
> > the situation,I should have made clearer that my proposal was a
> > discussion starter, only.
> 
> You are not at cause.
>
> Charles is not a policy editor (…)

I don't see how this /ad hominem/ charge is in anyway useful for the 
Policy process, sorry. Especially so when written _after_ Charles 
already announced he would back off for a year.

OdyX

Taking a one-year break (Re: Next update of the Policy ?)

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 10:55:38AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud a écrit :
> 
> For the avoidance of any doubt, I agree that committing the diff was 
> premature, although I assume it wasn't done in bad faith. Sorry for the 
> situation,I should have made clearer that my proposal was a discussion 
> starter, only.

Hi Didier,

thanks for the clarification. When you wrote "at least", I thought that it
meant that you were less confident, but still in agreement, with the commit of
your patch, compared to the re-reversal of my old commit.  I am sorry for my
misunderstanding.

I think that in other projects, a typical reaction could have been something
like:

"Thanks for moving this forward, however, I think that the update is not ready
because of [reason A], [reason B], and [reason C].  I think that it would have
been better to wait before commiting, sorry that I did not have time in the
last two weeks to make my points.  Anyway, here is a patch that would solve the
problem; what do people think about this ?"

However, the email I received this morning was very different...

While I still think that my contribution ot the Policy has some value for
Debian despite my mistakes, on a presonnal point of view, it is a loss.  It
definitely does not make my life better.  I just do not want to be contributing
in that atmosphere anymore.

I am taking a one year break in which I will ignore anything that is related to
the Debian Policy.  Maybe in October 2016 I will be more resilient, or the
community will be nicer, who knows ?

Cheers,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Charles & Steve,

Le vendredi, 2 octobre 2015, 19.42:53 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 11:23:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > to fully implement the TC's decision, I think that it would be best
> > to upload the updated Policy.
> 
> I see that you have committed Didier's proposed text to the git
> repository.
> 
> This is highly inappropriate.  The Technical Committee has passed a
> resolution that provides general technical guidance to the project. 
> That does not mean that the TC has approved any *particular* policy
> language, or that the normal policy process may be bypassed in
> deciding the policy language.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I agree that committing the diff was 
premature, although I assume it wasn't done in bad faith. Sorry for the 
situation,I should have made clearer that my proposal was a discussion 
starter, only.

Cheers,
OdyX

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Bill Allombert]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 10:55:38AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Charles & Steve,
> 
> Le vendredi, 2 octobre 2015, 19.42:53 Steve Langasek a écrit :
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 11:23:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > to fully implement the TC's decision, I think that it would be best
> > > to upload the updated Policy.
> > 
> > I see that you have committed Didier's proposed text to the git
> > repository.
> > 
> > This is highly inappropriate.  The Technical Committee has passed a
> > resolution that provides general technical guidance to the project. 
> > That does not mean that the TC has approved any *particular* policy
> > language, or that the normal policy process may be bypassed in
> > deciding the policy language.
> 
> For the avoidance of any doubt, I agree that committing the diff was 
> premature, although I assume it wasn't done in bad faith. Sorry for the 
> situation,I should have made clearer that my proposal was a discussion 
> starter, only.

You are not at cause.

Charles is not a policy editor and has no right to commit the GIT repository.
Since the day he resigned as a policy editor, instead of adopting a low
profile, he has interfered with the job of the remaining policy editors by
trying to set the agenda. For some reason his commit rights were not revoked
when he resigned and he is now abusing the priviledge.

The GIT repository is only a tool for the policy editors. Due to the
decentralized nature of GIT, anybody can clone it anyway and send a pull 
request.
Pushing to it directly is uselessly interfering with the policy editors job.

Charles needs to let the policy editors do their work at their own pace and with
serenity.

Charles seems to have decided that the menu policy discussion should take
precedence over over issues (multiarch, systemd, etc.) that are much more
important.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Re: Next update of the Policy ?

[Steve Langasek]

Charles,

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 11:23:02AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:

> to fully implement the TC's decision, I think that it would be best to upload
> the updated Policy.

I see that you have committed Didier's proposed text to the git repository.

This is highly inappropriate.  The Technical Committee has passed a
resolution that provides general technical guidance to the project.  That
does not mean that the TC has approved any *particular* policy language, or
that the normal policy process may be bypassed in deciding the policy
language.

Didier's patch has seen much discussion, but exactly zero seconds from
developers on the debian-policy list.  Didier himself gave his approval for
you committing the *cherry-picked revert* change, /not/ for committing his
proposed patch.

There is no evidence of consensus regarding the proposed implementation of
the TC resolution, and I (among others in this discussion) do not consider
this text to be in a state that's suitable for release as a new version of
policy.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Next update of the Policy ?

[Charles Plessy]

Dear Policy Editors and everybody,

to fully implement the TC's decision, I think that it would be best to upload
the updated Policy.  In addition, there are already a few other changes ready.
Here is the current upgrading checklist.

10.5
   Symbolic links must not traverse above the root directory.
  
9.2.2
   32bit UIDs in the range 65536-4294967293 are reserved for dynamically
  allocated user accounts.
  
5.1
   Empty field values in control files are only permitted in the
  debian/control file of a source package.
  
4.9
   debian/rules: required targets must not attempt
  network access.
  
12.3
   recommend to ship additional documentation for package
  pkg in a separate package pkg-doc and install it
  into /usr/share/doc/pkg.
  
9.6
  The requirements for the FreeDesktop menu entries are now
  documented, in particular regarding the icon size and format, when to display
  the entry, and where to coordinate the integration of the entries in menus of
  specific desktop systems.
  
9.6
   Packages providing a .desktop file must not also provide a .menu file
  for the same application.
  
9.7
  Packages already shipping FreeDesktop menu entries should use
  them to associate applications with media types.  Only in the absence of
  desktop entries, a file in mailcap format should be used.
  Associations between media types and files should be done via upstream
  databases, nevertheless it is also possible to register these associations
  directly in Debian if needed.
  

Can a Policy Editor upload the updated Policy ?  If you are short of time, I
offer to do it myself.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan