Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Wed, 19 May 2004 23:55:59 -0400, Raul Miller <email@example.com> said:
> 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>
>> >> > 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
>> 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 have always been a proponent of reducing the concedntration
of power from a few select individuals. Especially when it comes
to modifying or creating foundation documents.
>> 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 new social contract doesn't allow the release of software
which is non-dfsg free in main. Neither did the old one, in my
opinion, but lets not go there.
The critical part is that the release manager thinks that
there editorial changes GR made a major difference, and that if we
are to wait for sarge to comply with the social contract, we would
have to stop the current release, redo a major part of the
infrastrucute (debian-installer), and release perhaps a year
later -- which leaves a bunch of users in the lurch, since woody is
rapidly showing its age. Releasing Sarge asap comes under
supporting the installed base, and comes under "continued support
of our users" while we retool to meet the changed demands of the sc.
>> 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.
Not quite. I am saying that even more important than coming
up with a solution (which the tech ctte could do), we need to have
the solution ratified by a super majority of developers (or,
actually, the ones who care enough to exercise their franchise).
> That's fine, but on the flip side I suspect that that the current GR
> is a useful tool for reaching that end.
Bot for determining a course of action, and for establishing
that there is buy in.
> 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.
Umm, no. I am pragmatic enough to realize that a 75%+ support
from active members is perhaps the most agreement that we can
expect; we have long past rown too large for strict unanimity.
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux)
is the answer. Taken from a .signature from someone from the UK,
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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