Re: "Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge" or "Debian commits suicide"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: "Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge" or "Debian commits suicide"
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 01:01:36 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040429171225.A32758@synopsys.com> <20040430132548.GD7027@cloud.net.au> <20040430162334.GA1728@torrent> <20040430162947.GG31780@grep.be> <email@example.com> <20040430221429.GM2365@zewt.org>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:50:38PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> It would have been rather hard to have the ballot evaluate the
>> consequences of the change on the RM's interpretation of the social
> If the RM never made it clear, during the discussion of the GR, that its
> passing would force him to do what he did, and that he didn't find the
> changes to be editorial, I'd be somewhat confused. (I didn't follow the
> GR on debian-vote, though; I only know its background on d-devel and
> d-legal.) I'm assuming this was an accidental lack of communications.
This is the case. I also assume that was an accidental lack of
communication, although AJ has confused matters by claiming that people
should have known how he would behave.
An additional miscommunication is that most people appear to have believed
that the sarge-ignore tag was used for practical reasons of expediency
*despite* the presence of Social Contract violations -- as indeed AJ said
it was in the case of bug 211765. AJ has stated recently that this
*wasn't* the case for any of the other uses of 'sarge-ignore', but lots of
people had assumed that it was.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.