Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical committee resolution"):
>> Have you raised this idea with the tech-ctte? What do the other >> members think of having review of Policy change proposals be part of >> the tech-ctte job? How would the mechanics of this work? (Manoj's >> Policy change proposal has the tech-ctte as an automatic appeal for any >> rejected Policy change, but this sounds more active than that to me.) > I would suggest that as a first step, without needing to change anything > anywhere else, the policy maintainers advise submitters of rejected > changes of their courses of appeal. > > So for example if you think the change is a bad idea, you can have a > little form letter that says > > [explanation of why not to replace /etc with a binary `registry'] > > For the reasons above, we have decided not to accept your proposed > policy change. This is because we think > [*] it is a bad idea > [ ] the design is incomplete > [ ] it requires a practical demonstration > (indicate one or more) > > We may of course be wrong. If you disagree with this decision > and wish to pursue the matter further you should refer the matter > to the Technical Committee. Please send them a copy of or a > reference to this email, along with the reasons why you disagree. > > or something. So, I could start doing this right now if you'd like. Manoj and I have a handful of Policy bugs that we've tagged dubious and that I was planning on closing at some point. I could just go close them all and refer people to the tech-ctte for appeal. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]