Re: A proposal to revive the Policy document
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> I disagree with Manoj wrt the level of formality required for
Ian> maintaining the policy document.
Then your is the first objection that I have seen regarding
the proposal. If you wish to make this a formal objection, then under
the proposal (which as yet has no standing) this would take the issue
to a vote.
Ian> I think we should have one or several policy editors who will produce
Ian> a reasonable procedure to ensure that everyone is aware of discussions
Ian> and their status. The editors would act as document editors do in the
Ian> IETF, and make changes to the document when rough consensus was
Ian> achieved.
Incidentally, if you wish, as all the proposed policy editors
have signed on as seconds to the document, this proposal can be seen
as the reasonable procedure to ensure that everyone is aware of
discussions and their status.
Ian> I don't think we need to have a formal process for ensuring that
Ian> amendments are tracked etc. If the policy editors don't do a
Ian> good job then the Technical Committee can overrule them, or in
Ian> extremis decide in favour of someone else's request to take them
Ian> over.
I think I disagree. I think a process is indeed required,
since designing a process is better than handling things ad hoc; if
informality is desired, we shall not write it into the policy. Treat
this proposal as a draft for what this current set of policy
maintianers aim to do. If the process is too stiff and mechanical, we
shall learn, and whatever works shall be put into policy finally.
Secondly, this places too much power in the hands of a few
people selected entirely by the ptroject leader; and I think that
this may not be desirable from the viewpoint of the rank and file
developer.
Ian> The editors should probably used shared CVS or something if there are
Ian> more than one.
This is precisely what has been proposed.
Unless you are invoking your powers as project leader I shall
not abort the current effort to breathe life into this effort to
un-orphan the policy documents.
manoj
--
Q: How many Californians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A:
Five. One to screw in the lightbulb and four to share the
experience. (Actually, Californians don't screw in lightbulbs, they
screw in hot tubs.) Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in
a light bulb? A: Three. One to screw in the lightbulb and two to
fend off all those Californians trying to share the experience.
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: