Re: "Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge" or "Debian commits suicide"

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Anthony Towns wrote:

> I'm sure if the proposers and seconders had said as part of the resolution
> exactly what this should imply for sarge, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion.
In a way, they did.  They said that it did not constitute a substantive
change, merely a clarification; therefore, this resolution implies *no
change*.  You specifically marked certain identified Social Contract
violations as "sarge-ignore", which most people thought meant that they
*were* Social Contract violations but were being ignored.  There is no
change in whether this practice is valid or not (which doesn't answer the
question of whether it was valid in the first place, of course).

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.