Hi, >>"Robert" == Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> Ok, reading through those a few times, I see that Manoj said in Robert> http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9809/msg00072.html: Robert> "I hope I am not incorrect in assuming that the debian-policy, Robert> packaging-manual, and the developers-reference packages constitute Robert> the core of the policy documents." Robert> According to him this is a proposal. It was a statement. It was, in context, part of a move to get started with assuming control of the packages that made up the core of Debian Policy. Robert> Note that it is unseconded, noone ever voted for it, and Robert> noone ever objected to it. A statement does not need to be seconded (most of yours aren't either). And the relevant bit is that there were no objections to the statement, or to the further proceedings where control of the Policy documents was taken from the previous maintainers and passed to this mailing list. What do you expect one to do? Ask for a full vote on every single darned statement? Robert> It also requires the reader to Robert> equate "core of the policy documents" with "carrying the Robert> weight of policy". When I say some thing is the core of Debian Policy, do you not think that carries the weight of policy? If the core policy documents do not carry theweight of policy, what does? Robert> In light of this, I am inclined to agree with Manoj that the Robert> packaging manual is policy, although I ask Manoj to use a Robert> question next time he wants a group of people to state Robert> whether they agree or disagree with something. I made a statement. If you disagree, say so. Robert> This slight of hand has created quite a bit of confusion No sleight of hand involved. I can't help it if you were slacking and not paying attention. In a group like this, if you do not participate, you miss out in having input. Whining later helps little. Robert> among developers, especially me. :) Until bug #31645 has been Robert> marked as 'done' neither the Policy document nor the Robert> Packaging Manual will recognize the Packaging Manual as Robert> policy. I never saw a public announcement that a concensus Robert> was reached either - surely an addition of 3115 lines of text Robert> to policy would have warranted some notice on -devel-announce Robert> or at least -devel. Indeed, in your announcements to Robert> -devel-announce regarding policy on Oct 30 and Nov 27, you Robert> never gave it a mention. You are good at playing fast and loose with the truth. The so called announcements to -devel-announce are dupload announcements of individual packages that comprise the policy. In my mind, the policy documents had always consisted of three documents -- and the significant part was that one was dropped, rather than that two were still included. Robert> I can't find anything in a quick search of -devel about any concensus Robert> either. We do not submit all consensuss on the policy group somewhere else. Robert> Please don't do this again. Unless you propose into policy that all devcisions of the policy group be announced elsewhere, this is bound to happen again. Robert> Ok, I apologize. You were not rewriting history, you were Robert> just writing it without any input. :) Someone has to do the work, sometime, or else nothing gets done. ;-) Robert> Bottom line, I no longer have any objections about people claiming the Robert> Packaging Manual to be part of Policy. Thank you. manoj -- I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
