> Hi, > >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This proposal does not change policy. One of the first things > to be done, of this proposal passes, shall be the policy change that > would codify it.
Actually, I do see this proposal as changing policy. I am willing to accept that this proposal does not change the policy documents, however. I can accept that since we don't have a working policy for changing the policy documents, this proposal will be "an undocumented policy for changing the policy documents, to be documented once the policy is in place". I don't have a problem with that ;-). > > The fact that I may be a policy maintainer does in no way > lessen my ability, as a Debian developer, to send in a proposal to > amend policy. If I implied that your position as a policy maintainer lessened your ability to propose policy amendments, I sincerely apologise. I did not mean that to be the case. What I meant to convey was that I would consider it improper for you to modify the language of a policy amendment, even one that you proposed, when updating the policy manuals. > I would rather not. I want to have an proposal to amend policy > pass, and then using the process formally change policy. > > As far as policy is concerned, we should never be in a > hurry. Passing this proposal can allow us fix overdue flaws in policy > -- while we debate the formal amendment. If this is -not- the formal amendment to be added to the policy document, then I retract any and all criticisms I have made in regard to the -language- of the proposal. I would still like some statement to be made in regards to amendments to the amendments. I do not mind the "informal" amendment style that was discussed (author listens to discussion, and submits an amended proposal, based on the issues raised in the discussion), but I would like to see some minimal time for debate over an amended amendment. If a new version is released too close to the deadline, there may not be enough time for interested developers to review it before the close of discussion. I don't see this as a major problem, but I'd still like to see it dealt with. > I would also like us all to have a taste of how this new > process works before we write it into stone. Agreed. > manoj > -- > He that loses hope may part with anything. -- Congreve > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> > Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
