Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread Martin Wuertele
I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place until the Debian Project Leader has

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread John Goerzen
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: My reason for this proposal is the impression the revocation of the delegation is based on the disagreement of the interpretation of the policy between the chair of the Package Policy Committee and the Debian Project Leader. I

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread Martin Wuertele
* John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-25 21:55]: You want to override a decision not because the decision is bad on its face, but because of a *guess* as to the reason for it? That makes no sense. What difference does the reason make? If it's a good decision, then let it stand. If

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping the Package Policy Committee as

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread Debian Project Secretary
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:01:11 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian constitution to delay the decision of

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

2006-10-25 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:03:11AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Next, I removed clauses that said that all the requirements of policy must be met for a package to be in main or contrib; we know that is not true. I

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

2006-10-25 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 01:49:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: p - Packages involving shared libraries should be split up into + Packages involving shared libraries ought to be split up into several binary packages. This section mostly deals with how this separation

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-25 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Martin Wuertele wrote: I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping the Package Policy