[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said: 

> Well, there's certainly a lot of hot air.  And the situation is
> rather unfortunate.

> It seems to me that:

>  * The social contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
>    release of sarge as-is.

> Therefore:

>  * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the social
>    contract.  If no waiver is forthcoming (3:1 supermajority, by my
>    reading), then sarge will not be released.

>    I'm pleased to see this discussion is happening and will probably
>    result in a resolution in time.  So:

>  * The Release Manager should plan for such a resolution to either
>    grandfather the existing situation, or permit the release of
>    sarge some other way.  To do anything else would be to prejudge
>    the issue.

>  * Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to
>    clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather
>    resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as
>    possible.  IMO it would be a bad idea to write a long document
>    `under the gun'.  Any such grandfather resolution should probably
>    delegate reasonably wide discretion about scope and
>    interpretation to the Release Manager, the Project Leader, the
>    Committee or some other similar person or body, to ensure that
>    it's sufficient and we don't need _another_ GR.

	I think we should not interfere in whatever solution the
 developers come up with, since we are not actually involved as a
 group in the solution process.

	I also don't think there is any need to rush this solution --
 and there does not seem to be any rushing going on anyway. The
 current schedule is for the vote to finish around the end of the
 month; and even under the most aggressive schedule Sarge was not set
 to be released until well after that (the final d-i beta was supposed
 to go out end of the month, and then the security team or someone was
 to have a poke at things, unless my memory is playing tricks).

	There is no reason that such a clause needs more than a day
 or so to hammer out, indeed, I think they have been hammered out
 quite well already. So there is no need to pontificate on how the
 developers ought to be solving something we aredeciding to punt back
 to the developers in the first place.

> Does anyone on the committee disagree with anything I've said above
> ?


There is in certain living souls A quality of loneliness unspeakable,
So great it must be shared As company is shared by lesser beings. Such
a loneliness is mine; so know by this That in immensity There is one
lonelier than you.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: