Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
- From: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:27:02 +0100
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20040426045609.GA2579@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040427113620.GB4073@keid.carnet.hr> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge"):
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > * 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.
We've been asked by the person responsible, and we're definitely
entitled to an opinion. I don't think this would be interfering.
> 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).
As we can see on -vote, GRs take a lot longer than you might think.
> 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.
Um, we're not punting the problem back in the sense that we don't want
to decide. We're punting it in the sense that we have no power to
decide. Don't we have an opinion ?