Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:11:08PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What I'm proposing, instead, is that we explicitly override the social
> > contract [temporarily, within some limits, based on what we've been doing for
> > years] and just be done with it.
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:10:29PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> this is hypocrisy.
>
> having a principle which is so hard to live up to that it requires a special
> exemption for the sake of convenience is pointless. either the principle is
> valid or it is not. there is no ethical middle ground which says the principle
> is valid but we should just ignore it because it's inconvenient right now.
In my opinion, hypocrisy is trying to get the non-DFSG materials [those
which have been designated as release candidates for Sarge] released
without being willing to say that you want them released.
> either the current wording of the SC is right, in which case we should follow
> it; or it is wrong, in which case it should be reverted to the old wording
> which wasn't so impractical and incovenient.
And what if it is both? [To be both you merely need more than one
criteria to judge against.]
I believe Anthony Towns has said that he now believes his earlier release
policy to be in error.
My interpretation of this is that while he was sincere in his
interpretation of the old Social Contract at the time he composed it,
his observations since then lead him to believe that he was not using
an interpretation shared by some significant number of other developers.
Of course it may be something else he was thinking of as the error
(perhaps not getting other people to step up and stand behind their
views on how we should handle releases).
In any event there already is a proposal on the ballot which does a
better job of expressing the "release now" concepts than I have, and
I'm not going to propose a new GR at this time.
--
Raul
Reply to: