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

Re: The new Social Contract and releasing Sarge

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 11:07:17AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In any case, I disliked the old procedure; I thought it was based on
> an incorrect interpretation of the Social Contract; so I happily
> supported and voted for the GR which amended the Social Contract to
> make clear that the old procedure was not allowed.

Well, that's fine, and is now clearly the case. I can't see why you'd do
anything but expect the procedure to be dropped once the interpretation
it was based on was rendered implausible.

> Because I'm willing to tolerate slowness and areas of ambiguity, I did
> not expect that this would mean that sarge would have to be delayed
> until it gets brought into compliance.  

Well, there's no ambiguity anymore to tolerate, and if slowness is the
only remaining choice then that implies sarge gets delayed until it's
in compliance.

If you're willing to tolerate hypocrisy -- that is, saying one thing
and doing another -- then you might see other options, but in spite
of Nathanael's claims about me, it's not something I'm particularly
interested in.

> But it's really Anthony's decision, 

I know it's fun to say things like that so you don't have to take
any responsibility yourself, but it's really _not_ my decision. It's
the project's. If the project decides that the social contract is
less important than I think it is, or that there are other possible
consequences of the changes to the social contract than the ones I see,
well, that's fine, and that's the decision, no matter what I say or think.

> and I'm still trying to make up my mind just what I think
> about the proposals to have another GR that would allow sarge to be
> released under the old rules.

If the new rules are better than the old rules, or even just better
than the wrong interpretation of the old rules Debian had been using,
why wouldn't we want to apply the new rules?


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: