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

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:06:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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?

For the whateverth time, it's the project's interpretation of the SC
that's important, not mine. I don't believe it's possible to interpret
the current SC to allow that policy; but I might be wrong. But just
because it is possible to interpret the policy one way, doesn't mean it
has to be interpreted that way. If the project were to revert the social
contract with the rider that "software" is to include "documentation,
firmware, etc" then that would still disallow that policy.

If the project doesn't have a clear consensus that a newly reverted
SC should be interpreted differently to the current SC (a number of
developers certainly claim that the interpretations of the two should
be the same, including the project secretary), then the tech ctte will
still need to decide the issue on the project's behalf, presumably. I
certainly will not.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: