Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:12:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The question isn't what I think, it's what the project thinks. Before
> the GR, the project leadership -- for this issue, the DPL, the archive
> administrators, and the release manager -- were unanimous in thinking the
> previous release policy was sound; various subscribers to debian-legal
> disagreed. I don't think the previous release policy is sound any
> longer, and in spite of my comments last month, nobody has come up with a
> particularly sound counterargument, and presumably if I were wrong about
> that and someone had, they'd have put that to the technical committee
> to avoid any "bogus" sentiment that might be clouding my judgement.
Ok, but wait a minute
"I don't think the previous release policy is sound any longer" makes
it sounds like "reverting the social contract" is not the right solution
to this problem -- this might carry the message, but in a lame fashion.
Is that what you have said?
In other words, I'm thinking this might be a better GR:
We resolve to release Sarge as expediently as possible based on
the current set of packages which have been designated as release
candidates for Sarge, regardless of the state of DFSG compliance of
any of those packages. Instead of relying on the DFSG for packages
which have a "doesn't satisfy the DFSG" bug, we will rely on the
legality of distributing those packages which are questionable and
have been Sarge candidates since 2003. Once Sarge has been released,
we will put minimal effort into maintaining such packages (providing
updates for seurity purposes, but dropping them from future releases
if they are not made available under a DFSG license).
If you now think that the old release policy is incorrect based on what
you've learned about how the project thinks, rather than because of the
wording changes in the social contract, then focussing on what the social
contract says is not the right approach.
If this is the case, a point made by the "ask what AJ thinks" crowd
is relevant (though, granted, they were presenting that point in a