Re: /usr/X11R6 process
Hi,
>>"Jim" == Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes:
Jim> This is going to be a pretty tough policy decision to make. Right
Jim> now, we've got several people who are holding "positions" for or
Jim> against different proposals. That's not going to move us any closer
Jim> to a resolution of this policy question. That's a sign that we might
Jim> have to move to a more formal process.
A formal process has already been proposed, and voted on. The
voting period ends today. I believe the people responsible for making
policy are the debian developers, and the policy amendment proposal
resoects that far more than this current proposal.
Jim> I'm not clear on what our current setup is for that. Do we
Jim> have a policy czar?
No, and we should not.
Jim> Maybe it goes up to Ian Jackson?
No, and it should not.
Jim> Maybe he'd like to put it to a developer vote. I'm not
Jim> sure. Does anybody have any pointers to the current
Jim> proposed constitution/policy setup?
Look at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/
Jim> Do people agree with this proposed process? If it's OK, I'll
Jim> make a first draft of the document, which we can debate.
I object to this process. It does not take into account
current practice, and in my opinion concentrates far more power into
the peson who edits the proposal document, and then a so called
czar.
manoj
--
My mind used formerly to go off wandering wherever it felt like,
following its own inclination, but today I shall control it
carefully, like a mahout does a rutting elephant. 326
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: