Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
Scripsit Anthony Towns <email@example.com>
> > I have _entirely_ removed myself from any influence in this situation.
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> You cannot do that while you're still release manager.
I think you're being overly literal.
This is a policy issue, he's stated the policy he thinks is correct given
the recent emphasis on the social contract, and the vast majority of
activism being based on the idea that it's time to tighten up the social
contract, eliminating areas where previously we have been lax. If this
policy is not correct you need to convince more people than just him.
> The project has vested in you the authority to be the one who says
> "Okay, today sarge is ready to release. From now on, stable means
Sure, and he's stated that he's going to follow the social contract which
means a fair bit of work tossing out non-DFSG documentation and such.
> There is good evidence that your decision about when to say that will
> be influenced by the outcome of the upcoming vote. You have repeatedly
> been asked a simple question about how you expect each possible
> outcome of the vote will actually affect *your* subsequent decision of
> when to release. You have repeatedly refused to answer that simple
Here, I think, is where we are going wrong -- we are not prepared to
state, in simple terms, what it is that we want and instead want to play
with indirection to get him to arrive at a conclusion which we like,
yet which differs from his current policy.
There probably are good reasons for adopting a different policy, but if
so they should be stated clearly and above-board.
> > If a general resolution is needed, everyone else's vote counts
> > exactly the same as mine does.
> You are forcing everyone else's votes to be based on imperfect
Even after him saying he thinks he made a mistake, with his earlier
release policy, I still disagree with this statement.
> A part of the project is trying to send you the message that they want
> you to release sarge on the original timescale, irrespective of
> whether it gets completely purged of the non-free things that your
> interpretation of the previous SC did not consider DFSG-critical.
So why don't any of the proposed GRs say this?
> Those people are considering various ways of formally phrasing that
> message. They have asked you whether some of the ways being considered
> will actually fail to send the message. You have refused to answer
Why should this matter?