On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:29:14AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > So "require" doesn't mean "gets excluded from the release". debian-policy does not define RC status, http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt is canonical for that. > My point > is that we do not immediately exclude packages from the release > because they fail to comply with policy, and this is especially true > for new changes in policy. When the RC policy is changed, future stable releases are expected to follow it, whether they're planned for tomorrow, or in six months time. That generally means we don't make major changes to RC policy shortly before a release -- it doesn't mean we make no changes: we might make changes that only affect a handful of packages, eg. I don't believe it would be a good idea to have the release policy directly contradict a clause of the social contract. In this particular instance, that's up to the tech ctte, of course: if you'd like to argue otherwise, you should talk to them. That doesn't mean future changes won't be considered in advance, we've done that for the /usr/share/doc transition, and we were doing it for the non-DFSG-free doc/data/firmware case, which you can still see in the sarge_rc_policy at the moment; but the current policy, whatever that may be, always applies immediately and universally. > This is especially true because, in my view, we've been violating the > Social Contract for years, In my view, we weren't and we shouldn't. I've no idea why you think changing the social contract would suddenly alter my view on that, or why Andrew Suffield seems to think my morality has suddenly changed. I can't say I really care, either, because you've both made it quite clear you don't give a damn what I think, except in so far as to think up ways you can force me to do what you want. *shrug* > and I've been patiently waiting for us to > steadily get better, filing bug reports as I see them, and working as > best I can to get us into closer compliance. Given that this is how > it always seemed to me that we were working, I assumed we'd continue > in the same vein. Obviously, you can view it how you like. The view that we can and should happily ignore parts of the social contract for expedience seems particularly unworthy to me, though. The view that I took, and continue to take, is that the Social Contract is the absolute minimum commitment that we'll guarantee to uphold at all times and at all costs. If upholding the social contract causes everyone to switch to SuSE or Windows, too bad: these are our principles and we'll stand by them. We can and will usually do more than that -- the list of RC issues, Debian Policy, and various other things are all attempts to do that, but they're things that can be waived or modified as necessary on a day-to-day basis. You can be as insulting as you like about interpreting "software" as only refering to programs, and as pedantic as you like about "Debian will remain 100% free software" and its implications about the exclusion of non-software, but when your alternative is to ignore your own arguments when it comes to licenses, and to ignore the social contract itself when it becomes inconvenient, I can't say I'm impressed. But hey, the good news is it doesn't matter what I think: I've recused myself, you can get the project to do whatever you like. Isn't life grand! Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <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.''
Description: Digital signature