On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Anthony Towns wrote: > [...] formal objections are only appropriate in extreme circumstances.
This is an interesting comment. I think there are several kinds of policy proposals: 1. Those who add new rules in policy to be followed. 2. Those who modify already existing rules in policy. This proposal is clearly of the second kind. I don't think that proposals of the second kind should always need "extreme circumstances" to be formally objected. If we followed this rule of "only object in extreme circumstances", we could be drawing circles forever. See: 1. Someone propose to abandon /usr/share/doc in potato and go back to /usr/doc. Two advocates of using /usr/doc in potato second the proposal. Since this is not "extremely important", people is afraid of making formal objections and the proposal is accepted, and policy is modified. 2. Later, someone propose to abandon /usr/doc and use /usr/share/doc instead. Two advocates of /usr/share/doc in potato second the proposal. Since this is not "extremely important", people is afraid of making formal objections and the proposal is accepted, and policy is modified accordingly. 3. The same guy who proposed to abandon /usr/share/doc proposes it once more and gets two seconds... This would clearly lead us to nowhere. Do you want a "technical" objection? I have objected to this proposal because I don't see any technical flaw in *current* policy which justifies changing it. I think this should be enough, and should not be considered the end of the world. As Manoj has pointed out, the policy procedures were not designed to deal with highly controversial issues like this one. We need the policy procedures to be that way so that things are approved by consensus. Thanks. -- "7a28a241942854c426140402103a25e7" (a truly random sig)
