Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:26:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> It seemed obvious to me, before the vote, that changes in the Social
> Contract would be handled the same way as changes in our other policy
> documents; that we would not instantly expect to conform to a new
> policy, but would instead continually try to get close to our goals,
> treating violations of policy as bugs.
Except... this wasn't a policy document, it was a foundation document.
Policy has an explicit provision supporting the release of packages under
a previous version of policy (this was 5.6.10, last time I looked),
but foundation documents are not governed by policy -- it's the other
way around.
There was no provision in the new social contract for the continued use
of the old social contract.
> Anthony's is another plausible interpretation, but it was surprising
> to me because it seemed so clear to me that of course we'd phase the
> changes in the same sort of way we phase every other change in.
But, you're asking him to address concepts which you haven't bothered
to express (and possibly: concepts which you haven't bothered to think
about).
How is it reasonable to say "I don't have any defensible reason for
thinking we would do A, but I was surprised that we didn't do A, and I
think you're hiding something from me because you won't tell me about
some B that I also don't have any right to expect that you're going to
upset me with by not doing." ?
Put another way: what OTHER issue (besides replacing one document with
another with no provisions for grandfathering the first) could possibly
be significant here?
--
Raul
Reply to: