Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > 5. No detailed design work.
> The Technical Committee does not engage in design of new proposals > and policies. Such design work should be carried out by individuals > privately or together and discussed in ordinary technical policy > and design forums. > The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or > adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have > been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere. > Individual members of the technical committee may of course > participate on their own behalf in any aspect of design and policy > work. The way that I interpret that is that the technical committee does not write Policy proposals. It only decides between alternatives that have already been discussed and designed elsewhere. This is, for example, why we still have a group-writable /usr/local; the tech-ctte decided that this should change, but the transition is beyond the scope of the tech-ctte work, and no one has picked up this task and made it happen. In this particular case, for this bug, I think this criteria has been met. There's no design work at stake here, just a question of whether we're going to rename upstream binaries with language extensions or not. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
