Having reviewed the policy team's process.txt document and having reviewed Charles's comments, I'm much less sanguine when I think about the approach for resolving the menu system discussion that we discussed last Thursday.
Keith may well have an approach that improves over both the status quo and the version Russ committed. However, he can rebase his diff and propose it against whatever the policy is when it gets to that point in the process. I think there's significant value in actually looking at the process issue. How would people feel about: * Someone reads #707851 to confirm the facts presented. In particular, confirm the seconds were made. * We contact those who seconded confirming that by seconding they believed both that the proposal was good and that rough consensus was reached as described in the current process.txt document. * We make an explicit call for unresolved objections to debian-policy, Bill and debian-ctte, giving people a couple of weeks. * We ask those who seconded to help us understand whether objections that are raised were discussed, and if so, what the resolution was during the debian-policy discussion. I get the impression that Steve at least believes that the proposal in #707851 is not technically sound. He may have raised that before either here or in #707851. At this point I have not read all the bug log for either this bug or #707851, and it's long enough I probably never will. Certainly if the TC believes the proposal is unsound that's going to factor into what we do. My hope is that an eventual resolution to this issue contains the following points: * Encourage Keith any anyone else who has improvements in this space to bring them up within the policy process, regardless of where we leave this issue. * States that we expect those raising concerns about consensus to clearly articulate the objections they believe are unresolved. Once a proposal has received enough positive interest, we expect those who do not articulate concerns and work so that their concerns are understood to stand aside rather than blocking the consensus process. We hope the policy editors will hold themselves to the highest standard with regard to this point. (wordsmithing required) My thoughts about the rest of the resolution will depend on what objections we find, our evaluation of soundness, etc. I'd be interested in comments about this approach and peoples' feelings about whether that's what we should do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/tslego59mmd.fsf...@mit.edu