[csw-maintainers] [POLICY] Policy-team, policy docs, licenses

Philip Brown phil at bolthole.com
Thu Feb 10 18:48:41 CET 2011


On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Sebastian Kayser <skayser at opencsw.org> writes:
>
>> * Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure what is the huge need for "an abstract". or even if
>>> there is, why this is so difficult to do ourselves quickly and easily.
>>> Going by
>>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
>>> their "abstract" consists of two lines, which basically say, "This is
>>> the policy manual. Stuff in debian, needs to follow debian policy.".
>>
>> If you guys start to discuss whether the _abstract_ (i.e. not even
>> actual policies) needs to be 2 or 5 lines long I feel that the policy
>> team isn't off to a good start.
>
> I agree with you. This is exactly what I'm afraid when such noise is
> raised about 10 lines of text. Sterile divagation about license,
> copying, patrimony, &c. This is clearly a policy of obstruction.


It's not "clearly" anything of the sort. I'm only  proposing that we
keep things as simple as possible.
And to do things ourselves, rather than feel the need to copy others.
Nowhere do I say "lets not have policy docs". Rather, I'm saying lets
just avoid putting stuff in them that isnt neccessary.

Are you saying you'd  prefer the other way, and go for "parlimentary
proceedure" or whatever, in all voting and writeups?


More information about the maintainers mailing list