Re: Revised proposal for updating Debian Policy documents
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
Guy> Looks good. The only changes I suggest are:
>> + If the issue raised is especially contentous, or is deemed to be
>> + suitable for review by the full set of developers, then four or more
>> + developers can call for a hold on the proposal, and move to send the
>> + proposal to the larger developer body as a General Resolution. *Note:*
>> + The constitution may have additional requirements for submitting a
>> + General Resolution, for example, a minimum number of seconders, etc.
Guy> Note that technical issues may not be decided on by a General
Guy> Resolution. Section 3.1 seems at odd with 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. 3.3.1
Guy> deals with technical, 3.3.2 deals with non-technical, so 3.3 deals
Guy> with? I think you should remove the second two paragraphs from 3.3.
I see. A technical issue can't get really contentous, since we
have means of resolving the issues (generally, this happens in the
list itself, but we can get the tech cmmt to intervene too).
So,I shall move the comments about moving to genral
resolution and constitutional process to the section about
non-technial deadlock resolution.
I'll submit a fresh revision tomorrow.
>> 3.4. Using the Bug Tracking System
Guy> If we set the maintainer of the debian-policy package to the mailing
Guy> list itself, then we need only mail the BTS.
True, except when we are sending mail which need not clutter
up the BTS (like me toos ;-)
manoj
--
Date: 28 Mar 90 16:12:34 GMT From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal
Schwartz) open(STDERR,">&STDOUT");warn "Just another Perl hacker,\n"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: