Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> * Since we are in something of a hurry, and there will be time to
> clarify the situation at more length later, IMO any grandfather
> resolution authorising the release of sarge should be as short as
> possible. IMO it would be a bad idea to write a long document
> `under the gun'. Any such grandfather resolution should probably
> delegate reasonably wide discretion about scope and
> interpretation to the Release Manager, the Project Leader, the
> Committee or some other similar person or body, to ensure that
> it's sufficient and we don't need _another_ GR.
I think we (the tech ctte) should not interfere in whatever
solution the developers come up with, since we are not actually
involved as a group in the solution process.
I also don't think there is any need to rush this solution --
and there does not seem to be any rushing going on anyway. The
current schedule is for the vote to finish around the end of the
month; and even under the most aggressive schedule Sarge was not set
to be released until well after that (the final d-i beta was supposed
to go out end of the month, and then the security team or someone was
to have a poke at things, unless my memory is playing tricks).
There is no reason that such a clause needs more than a day
or so to hammer out, indeed, I think they have been hammered out
quite well already. So there is no need to pontificate on how the
developers ought to be solving something we aredeciding to punt back
to the developers in the first place.
> Some other comments:
> * Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must
> be started within a certain period of a resolution being
> proposed. I don't think this is the case. The discussion period
> quoted in 4.2(4) is a _minimum_. According to A.2(1), it is up
> to the proposer or a sponsor to call for a vote, and there is no
> need to hold a vote until they do so.
Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already
called for a vote (twice, in fact, I asked that the vote be delayed
the first time for for technical vote taking rasons, and he agreed).
> I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
> calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a
As far as I can tell, there was no dissent on the wording --
indeed, there were no amendments being offered, and there was very
little discussion happening.
> * The Technical Committee has no formal authority in this area.
> The questions being disputed don't seem technical to me. So any
> authority we have derives only from Anthony because he's asking
> us the question - and of course from our authority to just
> pronounce our opinions.
I wish you would ask the rest of the ctte before voicing your
opinions witht he weight of the technical comiittee behind it.
> Does anyone on the committee disagree with anything I've said above
"IBM: It may be slow, but it's hard to use." Andrew Tannenbaum
<email@example.com>, author of Minix and Amoeba
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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