Re: changes and standards documents
> Raul> It's also important to recognize that the DFSG does not even
> Raul> address the problem of preventing buggy software. I feel that
> Raul> stupid modifications of standards documents are in some way
> Raul> analogous to this.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> Buggy software, when fixed, affects only Debian systems. But that's
> OK, we only distribute stuff for Debian systems.Even in that case, we
> are bound to feedback our changes upstream.
Nope. When the debian systems implement servers non-debian systems
may use them.
> Standards are meant to be a a common ground that everyone, (not
> just Debian) recognizes, and tries to follow. When we make changes
> to the standard, the others do not follow; essentially we have
> become non-conformant, and have injecxted a rogue document intot the
> universe.
As long as there's no fraud involved, I don't see the problem.
> A standard that no one follws is not a standard.
>
> I think the best way to proceed is become non-standard, and give the
> reasons for doing so and attempt to get the standard modified. Of
> find some other standard to adopt.
Sure, a part of the process of issueing standards is issueing draft
standards. That's certainly not the whole process.
> Standards don't eveolve via unofficial modifications (at least, I
> am not aware of a single instance of that happening). I have seen
> standards bodies looking at unconforming applications, and updating
> the standard.
Well, there's defacto standards, but I believe the fundamental point
you're trying to make is that a standard which is not being followed
isn't a standard. Which is fine.
I think we do need to make a place for standards which we can redistribute
but can't modify. I don't think that place is main. Perhaps that place
is contrib, or something like contrib.
--
Raul
Reply to: