Re: what needs to be policy?

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like
the best message for me to respond to.]

Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> wrote:
> The question is: What needs to be policy?
>
> Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop
> programs that tie the system together and are used in many packages
> (examples are the menu system, update-alternatives, dpkg, etc), the
> interfaces these programs present eventually assume the weight of
> policy, and that those interfaces should be codified and included in
> the policy document.
>
> On the other hand, I think that these interfaces need not appear in
> policy.

What I'm seeing is that we're overloading "policy" with other [rather
important] functions, such as "standards" and even, to some degree,
"interface definitions".

Policy should be rather broad in scope and concise in expression.

-- 
Raul