Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

To: srivasta@debian.org (Manoj Srivastava)
Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:29:02 -0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 8765bjsv75.fsf@rover.gag.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87smeo129z.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com> (Manoj Srivastava's message of "28 Apr 04 16:43:36 GMT")
References: <87wu43y44k.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com> <20040426045609.GA2579@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040426095953.O13880@links.magenta.com> <20040426101609.P13880@links.magenta.com> <8765bmwxqk.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com> <20040426161500.GC17247@azure.humbug.org.au> <[🔎] 20040426134224.Y13880@links.magenta.com> <20040426185336.GE20852@azure.humbug.org.au> <[🔎] 20040427210517.Q13880@links.magenta.com> <[🔎] 87vfjkvlza.fsf@rover.gag.com> <[🔎] 87smeo129z.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>

srivasta@debian.org (Manoj Srivastava) writes:

>  Can we let the wording of the gr be, and just recommend that the GR under 
>  discussion is our recommended solution, and let the developers decide on 
>  the wording as they go along?

I caught up on all the discussion threads about this I could find last night, 
and given how various individuals and groups seem to feel, I can see no better 
path towards concensus.

So, this sounds good to me.

Back to working on d-i...

Bdale

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
  - From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
  - From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
  - From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
- Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Next by Date: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Previous by thread: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Next by thread: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread