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

[Maciej Bliziński]

2011/2/10 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 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.

Simple, in what sense?  It doesn't seem to be simple to make progress
in our policy work.  Look at the timeline:

2011-02-06 12:27 Maciej sends the first revision of the patch sent out [1]
2011-02-06 12:54 Peter F sends a review with a suggestion [2]
2011-02-06 13:23 Maciej sends the second revision [3]
2011-02-09 00:12 Maciej asks for feedback [4]
2011-02-09 05:48 Phil sends a disapproving review [5]
2011-02-09 09:25 Peter F confirms his approval [6]

It took Peter F and me one hour to prepare a reviewed and revised
change.  5 days later, after exchanging many e-mails, the patch has
neither Phil's approval nor a concrete, constructive review (see [2]
for an example of such review) from him.  I would not call it simple.

> 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.

The license is necessary, isn't it?  We could remove the abstract, if
it makes things easier.

Maciej

[1] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/013964.html
[2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/013968.html
[3] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/013970.html
[4] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/014043.html
[5] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/014046.html
[6] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-February/014049.html