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

Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.

Dear developers,

To the question whether the SC allows for Sarge to be released more
or less as it is currently, Anthony has clearly stated he delegates
the decision to the technical commity, which has replied that the 
developers could settle the issue by a GR.

Unfortunately, none of the proposals so far address this issue directly,
but instead propose to modify again the SC, which is not something I 
feel comfortable with.

One of the point of contention is whether the meaning of the SC was
changed by the latest GR, and if yes, in what ways. I don't feel it was
changed at all myself, so I feel uneasy to vote in favor of a proposal
which imply otherwise. Also, in the group of developer that believe the
meaning of the SC was changed, I expect they do not all share exactly
the same view about how it was changed. 

However, I don't think Sarge should be delayed by a discussion on the
meaning of the SC whether it is the new SC, the old SC, or both.

So I would like to introduce a more neutral proposal:

This proposal is made in accordance to Constitution 4.1.5


4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election

  4.1. Powers

   Together, the Developers may:
    5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
       These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
       relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
       policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
       software must meet.
       They may also include position statements about issues of the day.


We, Debian developers, issue the statement:

"On the question on what software should be allowed in the main section
of our archive (The official Debian distribution) for our forthcoming
release code-named Sarge, we resolve that we will apply the same criterion
as for our preceding release, code-named Woody."


I suppose it fits as  "a nontechnical policies such as the free software
licence terms that Debian software must meet.". It would require a 
simple majority to pass, then.
Note that this not worded as an apology. We have worked hard to produce 
a release (Woody) that tried to meet our SC, and we should be proud of
the result even if it is not perfect. Is it possible to achieve
perfection anyway ?

I could include a rationale of why I want to introduce a new proposal, 
but I though that would distract you to consider the proposition on
its own merit. I could do it on a separate email if requested.

Now, I am not a great writer in my mother tongue, and I am worse in the
language required by this list, so if you are inclined to support my 
proposal, consider if you can reword it properly.

All the best,
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

PS: If you feel aggravated by my proposal, I profusely apologize, it was
not my intend.

Attachment: pgpvHkevod6Cm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: