Andreas Tille <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote: >> I would draw some more attention to the Policy, where debian-astro >> should not deviate too much from debian-science. > > I personally think that Debian Science policy is a bit poorly > maintained. My feeling is that amongst the lot of people nobody really > feels obliged to work for a document that is dedicated to explain > newcomers how to join the team. I think when working on a policy > document for Debian Astro the astronomers might find a lot of stuff that > could be merged back. Usually I recomment the Debian Med policy as > template but a recent effort in Debian GIS[1] makes me wonder whether > this document should rather be the best current template. On the other > hand: *If* (and only if) Debian Science could provide the best advise to > newcomers which is always up to date other team policies could create > their documents simply via some sed replacement regexps.
I am afraid that this is a good (actually a bad) example for the fragmentation. There is no real need to have diverging policies here -- the gis policy could actually easily adopted by debian-science, as well as the debian-med policy. Just something has to do this. And it seems, that having a -gis and a -med just removes the attention from a common work in -science towards small, very specialized blends? At the end, we actually do things twice (or three times): once in -med, then in -gis, and finally in -astro. Instead of just discussing it once in -science. Since you are a -med guy: could you think of proposing a common updated -science policy, where -gis, -med (and finally -astro) could derivate from? (no idea how this techically would work). Best Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
