Re: Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
(Shuffling around the text due to l33t rhetorical abilities...)
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:49:32PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the
> > following:
> >
> > "Changes to the Social Contract become binding for the release after the
> > one currently being worked on and are not applicable to already released
> > versions of Debian. However, the developers are being urged to implement
> > these changes in the currently developed release, if possible."
>
> This seems to be roughly what Steve Langasek's proposal does.
Well, he is only concerned with this specific GR and the Sarge release.
I'd think it be worthwhile to have something more general.
[...]
> I think both these points you've raised are addressed in the modified
> amendment (er ...) that I posted some minutes ago. What do you think of
> that?
I think it's the best one so far. But I still have two problems with it:
1) I believe that changing the SC should be a very infrequent thing.
Moreover, I don't know whether I like having temporal passages in it.
Your point of having it sitting in /usr/share/doc is valid, of course,
but I /guess/ that it would be more important to get the point accross
to our current and possible future users through mass-media, which could
be done with a similar GR, but without modifying the SC again as well.
2) What are we going to do next time? I guess we're all a bit more alert
to these matters now, but IMHO it makes sense to clarify this. I don't
know what you others think and I couldn't find an obvious place in the
constitution off-hand (however, I did not check thoroughly) where to put
this, but having a 'does not have to affect current and past releases'
clause for those kinds of changes looks appealing to me right now.
That said, if nobody else thinks my points are worthy to consider, I'll
support your modified amendment. In the end, our opinions seem to be
rather orthogonal, we can still have a look how to prevent this mess
next time when we've cleaned up a bit.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Reply to: