Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
>> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
>> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
>> documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied the
>> proposal below, apparently this is not a universally held view.
> You want to clarify what the principles of the project really are and
> all you talk about is point 1 of the Social Contract??!
> Maybe you take the other points for granted, though it surely looks
> strange to me.
So, where is your proposed wording which will not appear strange
> I also think it's rather strange to talk about binding and non-binding
> regarding 'Guidelines'. As long as it are guidelines, the question will
> always remain how to interprete them in any circumstance AFAICS.
The social contract is supposedly a contract. Also, the last two
of thte options in the mail seem to be where you are coming from. If
not feel free to suggest other options or better wording.
Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world. Lily Tomlin
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C