[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal G

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 12:24:56 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:09:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Manoj Srivastava:
>> >> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a
>> >> guideline, a major release of the distribution should happen
>> >> about once a year.
>> > 	On what basis do you think we can make this promise?

> Why are we so worried about what we can and can't do? Surely the
> interesting question is what we _should_ do?

	On the contrary, there is no question about that: regular and
 timely releases are indeed beneficial to users; and if we can so
 promise, we should: my concern is that our track record does not
 seem to indicate that this is something that we are so certain about
 that we can make a promise to do so.

	In my opinion, the question you label as interesting is
 vehemently not so; obviously we should make regular, and timely,

> Presumably there are some things we can do that we shouldn't, right?

>> > 	That policy violates the SC. You essentially told a delegate
>> >  to go violate the social contract, and I don't think we can do
>> >  that.
>> Ahem, this proposal tries to assure a delegate that his scruples
>> are unwarranted and that he should go on as previously planned.

> Yay, vote [1] unscrupulous delegates.

> There are two issues here: does the old policy violate the social
> contract,

	Yes, I do not think there is much of dispute on that regards
 (well, there is none, in my mind).

	I would like to point out Ian Jacksons summary of the issues
 on the TC list; (FWIW, I agree with that summary)

> and does that matter? Only if the project thinks the answer to both
> questions is "yes" is there a problem -- and if they do, presumably
> they'll rank this option below "Further Discussion" and most/all of
> the other options. If the majority of the project don't think both
> are the case, is there much point standing in the way of that
> proposal?

	I am not standing in the way of any proposal (I can't,
 anyway). I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads
 now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and
 must needs go on another ballot, and another vote. 

> I'm still amazed that there hasn't even been any
> micro-consensus-building leading to some of the alternative
> proposals getting merged or dropped.

	I have been struck by the same thing; we now weild votes like
 showdowns at high noon.

"Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.  Blood
debts must be repaid in kind.  The longer the delay, the greater the
interest." Chinese author Lu Xun, 1926
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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

Reply to: