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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> After the tremendous amount of dust this post has lifted, I think i
> have only one complaint: I agree with you, we must remain true to what
> ourselves define as our foundation documents. Many of us (I surely
> did) could not see this consequence when we voted for the editorial
> change. Probably because the vote had a misleading title, probably
> because the issues had been previously beaten over and over, and they
> were always tagged for 'after Sarge'. We could not imagine this
> outcome.

I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title.  It were editorial
changes after all.  We've been argued a lot of times before that the
SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data.  We
were a bit lax in requiring proper actions, though.  In order to
clarify this once and for all, the GR was proposed, and finally

It is unfortunate that the outcome of the GR will delay the sarge
release, of course, but in the long-term we all knew that we had to
fix the kernel problem, which was known for nearly two years after
all, and have to come to a decision on the GNU FDL issue.  We knew
that we had to deal with both at the end of the day, but only for the
moment they should not disturbe our release plans.

> I am not a regular IRC follower, I keep up with Debian's news mainly
> thanks to this list and to -private. And -once again- I believe there
> are many other developers in my situation. I have been also swamped by
> my work (and by other personal factors) recently, so I have even
> missed many discussions - but I am sure this would have ignited a
> thread almost as hot as this one. Not the kind of thing that can be
> ignored. 

I hate to advertise myself, but DWN would be a good resource for you
as well.



Let's call it an accidental feature.  -- Larry Wall

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Reply to: