On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:05:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > We'll fail to meet it for firmware and logos in etch, including our own > > logo, and to the best of my knowledge, we're yet to consider addressing > > the license of documents like the Debian Manifesto, or the Debian > > Constitution. > What? Are you declaring now that we will release etch in violation of > the Social Contract? I don't believe that the contents of woody, sarge, etch or sid meet the terms of the current social contract by any reasonable or obvious interpretation, no. As best I can see, our users expect us to release etch soon rather than either of the approaches to fixing that that have been mooted so far (drop drivers or delay etch), and I don't believe we can fairly say we're putting the needs of our users (or free software) first if we don't meet those expectations. So yes, I expect we'll release etch in violation of the social contract as it stands. That's why I think we should revert it to something that has a reasonable and obvious meaning that we have met in the past, and can exceed now, then spend some time actually thinking about what would make a better social contract for the future. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature