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

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

Hash: SHA1

Duncan Findlay <duncf@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The Debian Project,
>> affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it
>> distributes,
>> but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
>> consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
>> serve our goals or the interests of our users,
>> hereby resolves:
>> 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
>>    General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
>>    (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded;
>> 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian
>>    Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without
>>    further cause for deliberation.
> 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.

I second this proposal, as amended.
- -- 
Remi Vanicat
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>


Reply to: