Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:22:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:07:27 -0400, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> >> > In other words, with the new social contract, there should be no
> >> > problem releasing Sarge with GFDL and other such stuff in main?
> > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:01:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Sure, since we were practically at the brink of releasing Sarge,
> >> anyway, and, as I said in the proposal life does not stop just
> >> because we changed a foundation document.
> > ...
> >> I think that this is not something the tech ctte needs to hand to
> >> the project from up on high. I believe that we ought to continue to
> >> support users, bug fixes, overdue releases, etc. while we work
> >> towards changing stuff to meet the new SC --- however, this is
> >> something we need to get a buy in from the majority of the
> >> developers.
> >> There is a time and a place for tech ctte to take things into its
> >> own hands, but, this, I think, is not such a time.
> > I guess what you're saying is that you think "releasing Sarge" is a
> > good idea, but not such an obviously valid idea that we should
> > proceed with that idea without a GR that explicitly states that
> > that's what we should do?
> Don't guess. Don't project. Do not put words in my mouth. Do
> not attack paper tigers.
That was a question. It looks like you are saying "no" in response,
but it looks like the only form of disagreement you are expressing has
to do with the mechanics rather than the substance of my "paper tiger".
> I am saying that even though I believe it is a great idea, it
> is something we all must believe in, not be told to do so by a bunch
> of people who occasionaly pontificate from their tech ctte char.
Ok -- because of the questions I was asking when you introduced this
sub-thread, I was concerned that you were saying the opposite.
> I believe it is a great idea. I have thought it thorouh, and
> convinced myself. As AJ said, people must think so for themselves,
> not told it by authority figures.
To me, this seems to mean "this is obviously a good idea, but also is
not obviously a part of the social contract after 'editorial changes' GR".
More specifically, I haven't been seeing many people expressing support
for lines of reasoning about how the new social contract allows the
release of Sarge with software which is non-DFSG in main.
> The important part is not the GR. The important part is
> whether people so affirm their support for the idea of releasing
> sarge and transition periods.
I might not understand this distinction, but I'm guessing what you are
saying is that you consider "people have discussed the matter and have
reached an agreement" more important than the precise method of them
having done so.
That's fine, but on the flip side I suspect that that the current GR is
a useful tool for reaching that end.
> > If that's the case, I don't see why Anthony should treat it as such
> > an obviously valid idea that he should proceed with that idea
> > without a GR that explicitly states that that's what he should do.
> See what happens when you create paper tigers? You get
> paradoxes. Stop trying to put yourself in my shoes, you are not
> having a great day.
> Now stop imagining what I probably meant to say and listen to
> what I _am_ saying.
But if I do not present you with the implications of what you seem to
be saying, how am I to know if I understand you properly?
With that in mind: currently you seem to be saying we need more agreement
on this issue than what is required to pass a GR.