Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:16:09 -0400, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 09:59:53AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> The technical committee can't override the constitution (nor
>> foundation documents) any more than you can.
> Hmm.. actually, maybe that's not true in this case...
> Given that the intent of the most recent GR was "Editorial Changes",
> and given that those editorial changes have had technical effects,
I beg to differ. What technical changes? A release policy
change of this nature is certainly onn technical in nature.
> and given that the technical committee is empowered to decide on
> issues of technical policy, it probably is within the committee's
> bailiwick to grandfather the old meaning of the social contract in
> the context of Sarge.
I would strongly disagree. The developers can certainly pass
another GR, but the tech ctte should not override the wishes of the
develoeprs when this is not a technical issue at hand.
> I think this should be talked throough on the committee list.
Let me put it this way: it is a technical issue if you would
file a BTS bug to resolve the issue, and, usually, if it is related
to code, or other package components. We also generally do not resort
to GR's for technical issues; the fact that you first thought of a GR
to solve this should give you a hint that this is not a technical
Deciding when to release, and what can be released, does not
fall in that domain.
Expanding the powers of the tech-ctte for convenience, or the
belief that the developers did not know what they were doing, or to
take a short cut to a GR, is not acceptable.
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there
aren't even any property taxes." MacKay, Mathematics 134b
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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