Re: Decision GFDL
Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:47:01AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > That is my big question, which no one seems to want to answer. Is it
> > ok for the Release Manager to ignore the Social Contract? These
> > documents are not going to become free in the forseeable future.
>
> Is it ok for the maintainers of the packages that contain GFDL
> documentation to ignore the Social Contract?
Of course not, but they keep getting conflicting signals. J. Random
debian-legal-eagle says it is a bug, but the esteemed Release Manager
tells them it might not be. So the problem is the statement that the
Release Manager made. Once again, is it ok for the Release Manager to
ignore the Social Contract?
I understand that the Release Manager has some flexibility with
policy, but I thought that he didn't have that flexibility with the
Social Contract. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
> They have also agreed to uphold it; it shouldn't require a mandate
> from the release manager to get these bugs fixed. (Even treating
> the bug as RC does not guarantee the Social Contract has been
> upheld, as it only guarantees the bug will not exist in the release
> -- possibly by removing the package from testing and leaving it,
> bugs and all, in unstable.)
Unstable packages often have RC bugs. That is why it is called unstable.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: