Re: /usr/X11R6 process
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> Jim> Does anybody have any pointers to the current
> Jim> proposed constitution/policy setup?
>
> Look at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/
Thank you.
Because I don't have enough time to read the volumes of email on the
Debian lists, I didn't know the present state of the policy process.
I didn't even know there was a vote going on ... was it announced
anywhere?
Please don't hold it against me that I'm not as aware of the state of
internal Debian politics as you are. I don't have time for it.
> 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.
Since there appears to be something of a policy development framework
in place, I'm dropping out of this debate.
I was trying to act as a facilitator so the debate would converge, and
not die off like previously. I do want this policy issue to be
resolved so I can close the bug against the Gnome packages. If the
new policy process works, then it doesn't really need me acting as a
self-appointed facilitator.
Somebody needs to propose an amendment to policy to cover this issue.
I'm not going to do that, because I don't have a preference as to what
the /usr/X11R6 policy should look like. When the policy is decided,
I'll fix my packages and close the bug report.
Cheers,
- Jim
Reply to: