What the social contract actually says
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: What the social contract actually says
- From: Matthew Garrett <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:28:40 +0000
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <41DB105F.email@example.com>
- References: <20050102205604.GU12758@taz.net.au> <20050103154432.GA8545@gwolf.org> <20050104002650.GA5424@bignachos.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050104120812.GA10048@wonderland.linux.it> <20050104085705.F28146@links.magenta.com> <email@example.com> <41DAAE2C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050104155001.GJ7782@mathom.us> <41DAF598.email@example.com> <20050104212603.GM7782@mathom.us> <41DB105F.firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Cc:ed to -project, since it's effectively an interpretation of the DFSG
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 22:53 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Ah, maybe the posts stuck here are not "problems"? Well haleluja - let's
> rewrite our contract to clarify that we will hide anything but problems!
The social contract says that our bug database will be publicly
available. That's all.
Yes, that's a limited definition of "problems", but it's *our*
definition of problems. It's up to individuals to decide whether they
should speak publicly or privately. Your definition would appear to
preclude the use of #debian-devel (it's not publicly logged), private
mails between developers (they might discuss problems!) or developers
discussing any sort of awkward issue when they happen to meet each other
(unless it's recorded and put online afterwards, of course).
-private is not always used appropriately. This is irritating, but it's
not a breach of the social contract in any way whatsoever.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com