Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:38:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I think that I mistyped, and meant sarge when I said woody.
> In that case: most of those GRs simply revert the social contract with
> different ideas of "how long". One goes further and establishes a
> pattern for future revisions of the social contract.
Yes. Will Anthony do that? I assume so.
> In that context asking "what does all this mean for the release" seems
> like refusal to think.
I thought carefully about the last resolution, and assumed that it was
blindingly obvious that of course changes would get phased in over a
period of tim. I was shocked that Anthony took the position they
would need to be instantly conformed to.
I am worried that again there will be something that I think is
blindingly obvious that he will take differently.
> Why isn't it sufficient that he's stated that his interpretation of
> the old SC allowed some packages and his interpretation of the new SC
> does not?
Because I have no idea whether he agrees that the GRs in question
actually revert it properly. I am worried that he will interpret one
in a way that prevents it. And since it's so easy for him to say
"yes", and he won't, it makes me suspect all the more that the answer
isn't yes, and I am trying to figure out why he won't tell us.