Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:13:53 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said:
>> > I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's
>> > interpretation of the social contract. It wasn't against mine,
>> > nor to the best of
>>
>> It certainly was against what I took the social contract to be. I
>> never imagined that Debian was about only part of main being free,
>> indeed, as Bruce has stated, I, too, was under the impression that
>> the SC and the DFSG applied to everything on the Debian CD.
> I do not see how it can be maintained that these were "editorial
> changes" when there is clearly a significant number of developers
> who believe that the meaning of the Social Contract was changed (to
> the point of forcing action that was not forced before).
The reason I can maintain that the title was correct when the
issue was voted was that, unlike you, I am not telepathic; that no
one raised this issue while the vote was on, even the opponents, and
I just see a bunch of people whining after the fact when they realize
their apathy lead them to an end result they are unhappy with.
manoj
--
"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: