Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:16:02 +1000, Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I don't believe I have the moral authority to tell aj that he's
>> wrong to follow the Social Contract more strictly than I would. Do
> It's pretty rare in Debian that anyone is able to tell someone what
> to do on moral authority alone. Normally an explanation and
> justification is required and we attempt to achieve a consensus --
> ie, a common understanding of what the best thing to do is amongst
> the interested parties.
> As Joey's pointed out on his blog, we're doing less of this than we
> have in the past. I don't think it's a good trend, but others'
> mileage may vary.
> This isn't a matter of interpreting the social contract strictly or
> loosely -- there's no ambiguity anymore on this issue. I don't think
> it's reasonable to choose to follow the social contract "loosely" --
> the whole point of promises and contracts is that the folks bound by
> them don't get to choose how to follow them.
But when the language of the contract changes, there can be a
interval of time before the parties come back in compliance. It is a
policy decision if everything else stops, or not -- and I think
continuing with security fixes, bug fixes, and ever releasing Sarge,
would be acceptable while we bring the system back to compliance.
Your mileage may indeed vary.
Keep your mouth shut and people will think you stupid; Open it and you
remove all doubt.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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