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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:41:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 	No, perhaps you are right. But asking for a reasonable time to
> >  implement the changes in the social contract does not requires
> >  rescinding and restoring the social contract amendments; it could
> >  just be a statement of purpose, a working guide to the change,
> >  perhaps with a hard deadline. The foundation document stays
> >  unchanged. 
> i like this idea; it suits me well.
> Anthony Towns, in the role of Release Manager, if such a proposal were
> accepted by the body of Debian Developers, would this pave the way for a
> timely release of Sarge as was planed prior to the adoption of GR
> 2004-003?

If you think this is a valid interpretation of the social contract,
you'll need to expound upon it further, in particular explaining how you
can think that "working guide" or "statement of purpose" is possibly a
fair interpretation of either the word "contract" or "promise" both of
which are used in regard to this clause. I can't see how it could be --
you don't get to break a contract by saying "oh, it's only a statement of
purpose", and breaking a promise is wrong even if you still use it as a
"working guide".

Neither you nor I have the authority to do anything but abide by the
social contract, in whatever roles we possess. I'm not sure why you're
imagining I have some magic wand that lets me "pave ways".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: