Re: Policy about policy
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <raul@usatoday.com> writes:
Raul> I do think that the policy group needs to pay a bit more attention
Raul> to their own resolutions/procedures/informal practices/whatever you
Raul> call them.
Oh? Any thing specific you have in mind?
Raul> I do think that the policy group should consider actively
Raul> soliciting the opinions of package developers [on the basis that
Raul> package developers have some significant expertise in a variety of
matters> . It is possible that some documents (proposal, constitution,
Raul> etc.) need some fairly subtle edits.
You can lead a horse to the watrer, but. The policy group is
open to developers, and any interested developer can join. But a
large number of people doi not have the time, or the inclination, to
do so.
I would not be averse to copying blah@packages.debian.org for
some proposals. However, if people doo not follow the policy weekly
news, and do no join in, we should definitely no spam them, and force
them to participate.
A volunteer project is just that -- *volunteer*. Even if the
volume of -policy is too hihg, people can still liook at the policy
weekly news. I am not in favour of having the -policy group haplessly
waiting for approval from a group of people who may well be apathetic
to the effort.
Mandating active solicitation is, IMHO, asking this group to
spam developers who have had oppurtunity to provide their input
Raul> But huge upheaval? That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
Sure has not come across that way.
>> In particular, the policy group *does* decide on technical matters
>> by consensus, whether those decisions conflict with other packages
>> or not. Yes, suggesting major changes instead of demanding them is
>> /better/, and I'm sure we'll take that into account in future, but
>> it's only really important in one of a dozen (</pretend_statistics>)
>> cases: we shouldn't redo the whole of the -policy mechanism about it.
Raul> Yeah, sample size is too small for statistics to be very meaningful.
Raul> However, an 8% failure rate isn't really acceptable for major policy
Raul> decisions -- in my opinion.
categorization of one failure as an 8% failure rate is a sign
of not understanding statistics, or a definite bias and hostility.
These are easly days yet.
Raul> [Not unless you really do expect another group to comb through
Raul> what you've approved for quality control purposes.]
I find no other group whose acuity I would trust to be given
that much power.
>> What I'd like to see is the technical committee and the DPL ratify the
>> powers of the -policy group, rather than try to impose changes from
>> above.
Raul> Please review section 3 of the constitution for an overview of the
Raul> [constitutional] powers of policy maintainers.
Huh? You seem to be missing the point.
Raul> Like you, the constitution doesn't really define consensus -- but I think
Raul> that the informal definition "as long as there's no formal objection"
Raul> is completely inadequate.
You are entitled to yourt opinion. I find it a perfectly valid
description for a group of cooperative adults who do not hanker for
red tape.
manoj
--
Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance
can be tolerated only in race horses and women. Lord Kalvin
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: