'From Bill Leach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
Manoj;
The 'Social Contract' and the 'DFSG' are indeed goal statements. However,
they are goal statements of a very imprecise nature. They are not 'working
documents' they are rather more like 'lofty ideals'. Ideals that don't
necessarily mean precisely t
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first I have heard of our Policy documents being
> goals, and I disagree.
Policy, by its very nature, lies somewhere between goals and procedures.
While the DFSG and Social contract are very good, they don't say a lot
about the tech
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> The point is: we've got a wide variety of goals; debian-policy
Raul> is a fleshed-out statement of those goals.
I think you are taking policy where it should not go. The
Social contract, the DFSG, and the ilk are a statement o
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your objection is to the use of the admittedly subjective criteria
> "if they feel it is a technically superior approach." Would the
> (slightly) more objective criteria "if they feel that strict adherence
> to the policy would jeopardize system integrity or
The text under discussion, as written by Philip Hands and Buddha Buck,
and posted in total by Manoj Srivastava is:
___
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the
clause in
question is still ongoing, in
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
>question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
>policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior
>approach.
Hmm.. this is actu
On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:12:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
Hi back! =>
> This, I like.
Me too. It makes sense.
pgpokv7P7zBx2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
This, I like.
__
Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
policy violation if they feel it is a technica
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We do need a statement saying that the project has indeed adopted
>> this policy document, and the ``policy'' nomenclature is not a
>> ``mistake''.
Raul> We have one -- Ian made it. You've be
Hi,
I think we are getting nowhere fast.
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On 1 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Dale, I think no one is trying to be dictatorial about policy.
Dale> When you say the policy MUST be followed to the letter, I can
Dale> view t
On 1 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dale> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for
> Dale> policy to be clear, I will continue to urge caution when being
> Dale> dictatorial about policy.
>
> Dale, I thin
Ronald van Loon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find having a constitution sprung on me out of the blue, as well as the
> forming of a technical committee whose authority is unclear rather
> unsettling and contrary to the open way things have been handled so far -
> rather un-Debian, so to speak.
>
> You seemed (to my tired eyes) to be accusing people of objecting to:
>
> Policy should be followed, except where a discussion about the clause in
> question is still ongoing, in which case the maintainer may indulge in a
> policy violation if they feel it is a technically superior appro
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do need a statement saying that the project has indeed adopted
> this policy document, and the ``policy'' nomenclature is not a
> ``mistake''.
We have one -- Ian made it. You've been objecting to it.
[Actually, we have many such statements, go
> I have generally found that policy is actually decided by
> discussion on the policy lists, and I do not agree with your
> characterization that the multi-maintianer issue had obviously not
> reached a consensus. There were objections, but (apart from you, who
> were silent) the objectors
Hi,
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for
Dale> policy to be clear, I will continue to urge caution when being
Dale> dictatorial about policy.
Dale, I think no one is trying to be dictatorial about
policy. Ph
Hi,
>>"James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
James> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, it was gfetting frustating, what with being in the middle of
>> two conversations, one with Dale and James, who are of the opinion
>> that policy is a guideline, and not a set of r
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 06:36:37PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> While I agree with much of what you say about the need for policy to be
> clear, I will continue to urge caution when being dictatorial about
> policy.
>
> I only disagree with Manoj's
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:06:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Hi,
> > >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I may have over reacted to being the lone voice crying in the
> > wilderness bit.
>
> I prefer to keep
On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 04:06:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I may have over reacted to being the lone voice crying in the
> wilderness bit.
I prefer to keep away from such discussions until the air cleaned up a bit,
b
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it was gfetting frustating, what with being in the middle of
> two conversations, one with Dale and James, who are of the opinion
> that policy is a guideline, and not a set of rules adopted by the
> project
Again, please don't misrepresent my
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> Manoj, Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I
Philip> apologise profusely (I was fairly tired at the time I wrote
Philip> it, so may have started to be rather more argumentative that I
Philip> meant to be)
W
Manoj,
Was my previous mail really that annoying ? If so, I apologise profusely (I
was fairly tired at the time I wrote it, so may have started to be rather more
argumentative that I meant to be)
I think we actually hold fairly similar opinions about this subject. Did you
ever see my previou
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, this happens not to be the case. I was perfectly happy
> letting policy be policy until a well respected senior Debian
> developer made statements to the effect "Go right ahead and
> violate policy. Thats what I do"
>
> And anoth
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace
>> we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the
>> policy documents differently? no, but the signifi
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, policy means something which has been adopted by a body. Hace
> we actually done so? Am I saying we interpret the contents of the
> policy documents differently? no, but the significance of the policy
> documents definitely shall change.
Er..
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Manoj suggests on the one hand that there is too little control
Ian> over the Technical Committee, and then on the other hand that we
Ian> should elevate policy (which is currently decided on by fiat by
Ian> one person, in cases where the
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
>> similar. So, we have officially accepted and ratified the Policy
>> documents, I take it, and I just missed the party?
>>
>> If the project has indeed ``adopted'' the Policy docume
Someone (I don't have the list archive handy here so I can't remember who)
said on the firewalls list recently that security policy (but I think it
also is valid for debian policy) should be regarded as a cache of good,
well thought out decisions.
Policy represents the collective wisdom of a lot o
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip> [Oxford English Dictionary] policy[1]: noun. prudent conduct,
> Philip> sagacity; course or general plan of action (to be) adopted by
> Philip> government, party, person etc.
>
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
> simila
Hi,
>>"Philip" == Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Philip> [Oxford English Dictionary] policy[1]: noun. prudent conduct,
Philip> sagacity; course or general plan of action (to be) adopted by
Philip> government, party, person etc.
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> also quoted things
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raul> Since when is "The flight of the Bumble Bee" the right thing to
> Raul> do?
>
> Since I decided on it. What is to prevent me?
This epitomises the point you insist on missing here.
What prevents you, is YOU. If it turns out that you are a
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please point the clause to me that I should use the help of a
> a dictionary to elucidate for my feeble intellect.
Policy: 1. a plan of action; way of management; "It is a poor policy to
promise more than you can do." "The tight-money policy was
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why should you make your package conform?
Raul> Because it's the right thing to do.
If we all did the right thing we would not need a policy or a
constitution, would we now? This
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should you make your package conform?
Because it's the right thing to do.
> There is nothing that says you have to follow policy. Can the Tech
> committee make me do whatever they darned well please?
Well, they certainly can't make you read
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guy> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the law,
Manoj> and the technical committee like the justices, who lay down
Manoj> interpretations (which are referred to latter
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. I do think this leads to a dilution of technical
>> discipline. And we already have way too many open bug reports;
>> people do not seem to want to fix ``real'' bugs, and ``mere''
>> p
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
> header. My posting was written before I saw the one that discussed
> open bugs. The "problem" that I was referring to was the disagreement
> between those who felt policy should be a
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you think that these are the reasons?
>
> You might be right, but I'd like to know your reasons before agreeing
> that these are the primary reasons for bugs not being fixed.
There are a nuamber of sub-threads in this thread using the same
h
Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the problem has arisen because 1) the policy documents
> have not sufficiently delineated the difference between prescriptive
> (shall, must) provisions and (strong) recommendations (should, must),
> and 2) because some (many?) developers disag
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. I do think this leads to a dilution of technical discipline. And
> we already have way too many open bug reports; people do not seem to
> want to fix ``real'' bugs, and ``mere'' policy reports would be seen
> as fluff.
Policy is a kind of stat
Hi,
>>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jules> I'm not a debian developer, merely an interested lurker (I will
Jules> almost certainly become a developer sometime). Apologies if
Jules> you think I'm speaking out of turn.
Jules> --On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 2:47 pm -0500 "Manoj Srivast
> Cc: Debian Developers list ,
> Debian policy list
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 27 Apr 1998 14:47:23 -0500
> Lines: 44
>
> Hi,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. I think I like the idea of the policy documents being the
> law, and the techn
I'm not a debian developer, merely an interested lurker (I will almost
certainly become a developer sometime). Apologies if you think I'm speaking
out of turn.
--On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 2:47 pm -0500 "Manoj Srivastava"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>>>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi,
>>"Mark" == Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 01:49:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava
Mark> wrote:
>> I understand that one may want a little more leeway than say the
>> policy documents are writ in stone (I personally prefer that), but
>> to deny that and make n
On Mon, Apr 27, 1998 at 01:49:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I understand that one may want a little more leeway than say
> the policy documents are writ in stone (I personally prefer that),
> but to deny that and make no mention of any mechanism of enforcement
> of policy is disqu
Hi,
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> According to the proposed constitution, the policy documents do
Ian> not of themselves have any power to override a developer's
Ian> decisions. I think that to allow this would be to hand far too
Ian> much power to the policy editor(s),
47 matches
Mail list logo
