Re: Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't
> match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1
> (codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example).
>
> But more to the point: While I see that your amendment has its merits,
> I'm a bit nervous about changing the actual text of the SC *now* and,
> obviously, again after Sarge releases (or do we keep it until sarge+1 is
> out? Or forever?). I would consider the text rather ugly and a
> historical cludge at that point and voting again next month (haha) to
> revert it would be tiresome.
I think both these points you've raised are addressed in the modified
amendment (er ...) that I posted some minutes ago. What do you think of
that?
> Now, in real-world politics, laws usually have a date when they are
> placed into action a certain time after they've been voted on. Further,
> laws that change how things are being implemented (see, e.g. exhaust
> norms for new cars in California) are usually granted quite a while
> (sometimes, years) until they become binding.
>
> Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
> following:
>
> "Changes to the Social Contract become binding for the release after the
> one currently being worked on and are not applicable to already released
> versions of Debian. However, the developers are being urged to implement
> these changes in the currently developed release, if possible."
This seems to be roughly what Steve Langasek's proposal does.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: