Re: A mechanism to amend policy documents
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
> On 5 Sep 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Do you not find the version numbers suggestive?
> >
> > debian-policy_2.4.1.3.deb
> > developers-reference_2.4.1.3.deb
> > packaging-manual_2.4.1.1.deb
Suggestive but not compelling.
> > Would there be serious objections to having the policy
> > maintainers actually take over the developers reference?
>
> I have nothing to object. The fact that they are "purely documentation"
> does not necessarily mean that having the policy maintainers to take them
> is a bad idea.
Correction. IMHO, the most cogent point was made by John:
john@dhh.gt.org writes:
> Manoj writes:
> > Would there be serious objections to having the policy maintainers
> > actually take over the developers reference?
>
> I think it's an excellent idea, if you will bring it up to date and keep it
> there. That's more important than classifying it as documentation or
> policy.
Yes, and that "if" there is what worries me a bit. In my thinking,
the issue of who is best to maintain it is tied to who's decisions are
most likely to cause an update to be required of the manual under
consideration.
Taking another look at the TOC for the Developer's Reference, one
can't help feeling that really the Developer's Reference mainly
discusses how developers interact with the Debian archive (structure
of the archive, uploading, etc.). If I had to identify what it was
coupled with, I would say the maintenance of and standards used with
the Debian archive itself. That is, the work done by Guy Maor, Brian
White, the dinstall maintainer (not packaged yet, unfortunately, so
this is Guy I think), and other archive maintainers. For instance, I
need to add mention of the "proposed-updates" and how to upload to
there into the developer's reference. That was a change instituted by
the archive maintainers rather than the policy group.
It is possible that the Policy Group is hoping to widen the scope of
Policy to cover archive maintenance and organization functions. To
see what I mean about how these functions are currently not under the
purview of the Policy document, see the single para in "2.1.7
Subsections" of the policy currently. Anyhow, if the Policy group
does wish to expand its scope in this way then the Developer's
Ref. should be considered a core policy document. Otherwise, the
decision seems rather arbitrary, and perhaps prone to being a
detriment to proper maintenance of the Developer's Reference.
Remember also that putting documentation under the aegis of the Policy
Group does impose additional "overhead" (but not much) to the process
of updating the documents.
On the other hand, the Packaging manual seems an excellent addition to
the Policy Group's duties, assuming they are up to the task.
Note: I certainly hope that no one thinks that I'm trying to maintain
control over the package (territoriality). I really sincerely am very
busy right now, and do find it hard sometime to maintian my current
committments even (doc-base is languishing a bit and it's all my
fault, *sigh*). I really am only trying to keep the interests of the
accuracy of Debian documentation.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: