Re: what needs to be policy?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@golden-gryphon.com> writes:
> > As maintainer of modutils I would find it troublesome if I have to
> > go through the new-policy-process here for every change I
> > make. Having to wait a while for each feature I add doesn't sound
> > very helpful.
>
> FUD. If you are changing things in a incompatible fashion and
> breaking other packages and policy, I sure hope t put additional
> obstacles in your path. In fact, this is a prime argument for
> putting sub policies under the policy change mechanism.
Manoj, *you're* guilty of FUD. Every time someone mentions change by
someone other than this nigh-on-mystical policy group[1] you represent
all such changes as being done in an `incompatible fashion' and that
they somehow must be `breaking other packages and policy' (though the
latter is an interestingly circular argument). This is deceptive,
inaccurate and insulting to the maintainers of sub-policies in
general.
> I think no one person should be able to make changes in their
> package and make several other packages suddenly be in violation of
> policy.
Well the maintainers of debstd and debhelper can do that; should those
packages be maintained by the policy group?
[1] Which incidentally, is defined by nothing more than `the list of
subscribers, who are developers'. What on earth makes people think
there will necessarily be *any* technically competent people in such a
group is beyond me, especially since we place absolutely no competency
restrictions on potential Debian developers and haven't done since
I've been around. What on earth makes people claim that such a group
is *more* qualified than e.g. the Emacs maintainer to make technical
decisions with regards to Emacsen policy is also beyond me.
--
James
"Never trust trucks"
Reply to: