For MJ Ray 2 of 3 -- changes from Andrew's proposal
This is a description of the changes my proposal introduces when
compared to the proposal from Andrew Suffield which I'm amending.
The proposal Andrew Suffield has introduced, to eliminate
section 5 of the social contract, has two major aspects:
[1] It indicates that we remove a number of packages which we are
currently distributing (in my opinion: anything which doesn't make it
into the stable release which is not in main, or which is in main but
shouldn't be).
[2] It eliminates section 5 of the social contract (which trys to describe
our treatment of software which doesn't satisfy all requirements of
the DFSG).
It doesn't attempt to deal with any of the rest of the social contract,
and Andrew has provided no rationale for this change.
It might be worth noting that he's incorporated a few of my changes
into his editorial fixes proposal -- these aren't about our relationship
with our users so much as language cleanups to bring the social contract
language in line with other changes.
My proposal differs in a number of respects:
[A] Mine documents and expands on existing practice, instead specifying
that it change.
[B] Mine incorporates editorial fixes, instead of deferring them for
later.
[C] Mine expands the description of our support for free software users
in various ways. Andrew's is all about dropping support, and includes
nothing about improving our relationship with our users
[D] Andrew's puts a deadline on dropping a number of packages, and on
dropping some of our user support (next stable release), mine does not.
--
Raul
Reply to: