Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:16:02 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> 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
>> you?
> 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.
manoj
--
Keep your mouth shut and people will think you stupid; Open it and you
remove all doubt.
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: