>>"Matthew" == Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> Policy process section 3.4 doesn't seem to make any mention
Matthew> of how a proposed amendment gets accepted or rejected. I
Well, rough consensus is one criteria. Not making a
``significant'' number of packages instantly buggy is another.
Getting things to work first, ironing out all the kinks, and then
coming up with the policy proposal also helps.
Matthew> personally am particularly interested in #89867, which has
Matthew> been turned into an amendment, but hasn't had any sort of
Matthew> discussion or acceptance.
Since the web browsers have not implemented the requisite
changes, this proposal is unlikely to be accepted unil they do.
Matthew> I for one would like to see the amendment part of policy,
Matthew> and see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted.
Because any package which follows the proposal would be buggy,
since those images shall not actually be accessible.
manoj
--
Creating computer software is always a demanding and painstaking
process -- an exercise in logic, clear expression, and almost
fanatical attention to detail. It requires intelligence, dedication,
and an enormous amount of hard work. But, a certain amount of
unpredictable and often unrepeatable inspiration is what usually
makes the difference between adequacy and excellence.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
