Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jim> Does anybody have any pointers to the current > Jim> proposed constitution/policy setup? > > Look at http://master.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/policy/
Thank you. Because I don't have enough time to read the volumes of email on the Debian lists, I didn't know the present state of the policy process. I didn't even know there was a vote going on ... was it announced anywhere? Please don't hold it against me that I'm not as aware of the state of internal Debian politics as you are. I don't have time for it. > Jim> Do people agree with this proposed process? If it's OK, I'll > Jim> make a first draft of the document, which we can debate. > > I object to this process. It does not take into account > current practice, and in my opinion concentrates far more power into > the peson who edits the proposal document, and then a so called > czar. Since there appears to be something of a policy development framework in place, I'm dropping out of this debate. I was trying to act as a facilitator so the debate would converge, and not die off like previously. I do want this policy issue to be resolved so I can close the bug against the Gnome packages. If the new policy process works, then it doesn't really need me acting as a self-appointed facilitator. Somebody needs to propose an amendment to policy to cover this issue. I'm not going to do that, because I don't have a preference as to what the /usr/X11R6 policy should look like. When the policy is decided, I'll fix my packages and close the bug report. Cheers, - Jim
