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". Cheers, aj -- 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