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

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Wed, 19 May 2004 19:25:25 -0400, Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> said: 

> On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:55:35PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The fact there was a precedent for this? When we first adopted the
>> DFSG, we did not throw out everything all at once -- indeed, there
>> was a release within a few days of adoption of the DFSG, and that
>> release certainly did not meet the DFSG and the new social
>> contract.

> Sarge wasn't ready to go out within a few days of this change.

	I have been told that we are on schedule, and st least some
 of the schedules call for the release as early as this summer. Given
 how old stable is, compared to the age of stable when we voted in
 the dfsg, and the relative increase of the time between releases,
 sarge is pretyy close to "ready to go".

>> Why would it be reasonbable to believe that the behaviour of the
>> project would be radically different from how we have done things
>> in the past?

> Because we didn't wait until near when Sarge was being released to
> pass this GR?  [Much of this GR had been introduced last year.]

	I don't think we waited for when a release was nearly done
 before debating the SC/DFSG and adopting them. Indeed, if my memory
 is at fault, please point me to the mail/thread where we decided
 towait for a release being nearly done.

> For that matter, we didn't have any release management back then, we
> hadn't had a DFSG back then, we didn't have any base of decisions
> from debian-legal, and Bruce was providing the final word on most
> issues.

	Release management is designed to help the project coordinate
 a release, not change the fundamental behaviour of the project; so I
 am not sure this is relevant.

> Nevertheless, it IS a good idea to grandfather prior decisions for
> some time, and we could argue for releasing sarge on that basis.  If
> you like, we can try making that fly in the technical committee.

	As I mentioned in -ctte; I think this is for the whole
 project membership to decide. Proposal E is essentially a formalized
 grandfathering guideline.

"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up
reasons for it afterwards." Soren F. Petersen
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: