"Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>Organization:srivasta"@debian.org wrote: > There is precedence for this gap in ratifying a foundation and > implementing the dictats of that document; as Joey Hess reminded me: I think that this document needs some serious editing before it is suitable as any official statement from the Debian project, let alone a foundation document. In particular, note the use of "me" above; I noticed other minor problems while reading it but do not have time for a thurough edit. I prefer not to have my name in any foundation document of the Debian project, as it could have unforseen consequences later. > when we first accepted the Social Contract and the DFSG, there was an > interval before we came into compliance (indeed, it is arguable if we > were ever completely in compliance -- see above about it being an on > going process). Indeed, there was a release of a minor version just > days after the DFSG was accepted, which by no means complied. > > We also did not yank out older releases, or drop support for them > immediately (as shown by the minor release). And given that precident, I really have a hard time understanding why this most recent change has been made into such a big deal. I think it says unfortunate things about some of the directions Debian has gone in the intervening years. Nevertheless, I suppose this document is as good a way to deal with it as any, or at least good enough to be an option on the ballot. > With this document, we, the Debian Project, do so affirm this. We > affirm that while we are working towards a change in the long term > goals and identity of the project, or any change in a foundation > document, the needs of the users shall not be catered to during the > transition period. "shall not"? Surely you mean "shall". -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature