Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Xavier Roche <email@example.com> schrieb:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> *Shrug*. At least you can't say that this GR was secretly
>> snuck in when you were not looking, or that no one reminded you to
> But the consequences (ie., the firmware/documentation problem) was
> absolutely not clear.
> "Editorial amendments to the social contract"
> "Explicit Exclusion of non-software binary elemements such as firmwares"
> Yes, I was careless because of the vague GR title. But was I the only one ?
> 80% of all DD were okay with this GR ?
> More than 50% voting participation with "Status of the non-free section",
> and only 20% with this one, which also has great consequences ?
I didn't vote, and I would perhaps have voted if the title would have
However, I still think that it was only editorial changes, that the
GFDL'ed stuff was non-free even before this GR, and that it was
considered non-critical for sarge despite of this.
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie