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

Re: Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I wish to propose the following amendment:

> That point 2. above be changed to read:

> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the
>    Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of
>    the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without
>    further cause for deliberation.

> Rationale:

> > A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us
> > ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that
> > maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program
> > components of Debian vis ? vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern.

> While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge,
> without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not
> release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best
> to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect
> rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although
> on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but
> it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may
> result in an inferior product.

> I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by
> September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just
> in case.

> Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you
> accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for
> this amendment to the proposal.

There are two primary considerations influencing my choice of a fixed
period instead of delaying the enactment relative to sarge's release:

- as mentioned, a fixed period leaves people less likely to think this
is something they can defer indefinitely (since as we all know, "after
sarge" is "indefinite" ;P), as just because it may be "sarge-ignore"
doesn't mean it should be allowed to languish (merely treated with a
priority similar to "important" bugs)

- as a release assistant, I don't want to have to deal with crazies
claiming that I'm deliberately delaying sarge's release to foster
further infiltration of non-free docs in main. :P

While building a consensus around your amendment would address the
second point, I don't think it addresses the first; so I think I must
reject this amendment.  I don't object at all to you getting seconds for
it on its own, though.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: