Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:03:57PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> <big snip>
>> In this case you should have voted "further discussion".
>> Of course, such behavior has a tendency to stifle progress. Given
>> that there was so little discussion leading up to the vote, I think it
>> was appropriate in this case.
> As one of the few who _did_ vote _and_ who voted for further discussion
> It seems to me that it is inappropriate to stop right now and fight
> through all the issues raised by aj's email.
> As a project, we are between 70 - 90% ready to release Sarge (as a first
> order approximation). It is inappropriate, IMHO, to take the latest GR
> as a reason to postpone Sarge release.
Yep. Why did Anthony decide to do that? Well, I guess we know.
> Tag the GFDL and firmware issues as "Sarge + 1" but don't ignore them:
> make it clear that they must be resolved before the next release.
> Try and make the position clearer with the FSF.
> Add a rider to the distribution installation and release notes for
> Sarge. Note in this that Debian devlopers changed the Social Contract
> text as from ... and that we were, at that stage, virtually ready to
> release on the
> basis of the pre-existing Social Contract. Since it would be inequitable
> to apply the new SC retroactively, the Sarge release is accordingly based
> on the pre-GR SC.
Except that it isn't. It's based on a thoroughly debunked misinterpretation
of the pre-GR SC. If you write a rider which says *that*, great. How
The Debian developers concluded that the Sarge release violates the Social
Contract with regard to documentation, data, and some other things. Since
the Woody release was even worse in this regard, and the Sarge release was
nearly ready, we released Sarge anyway; we promise to do better for the
> Let's get testing the beta4 of d-i and release the bloody distribution
> as fast and as well as we practicably can.
Sounds good to me.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.