On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:48:26AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Anyway. Language has no effect on release timing. Release policies have > > an effect on release timing. The following release policies are possible: > > * All programs in main must be DFSG-free > > * All GPLed firmware in main must comply with the GPL > > > > * All program documentation in main must be DFSG-free > > * All documents in main must be DFSG-free > > * All firmware in main must be DFSG-free > > * All data in main must be DFSG-free > There is at least one more, and it seems to me this is what many people > have expressed: > * All data (everything) in main should be DFSG-free, and must be > post-sarge. But we want an exception for sarge. Uh, no, that would be a transition stategy for changing release policies. The release policies applicable to sarge would be the first two (presumably), and the release policies for sarge+N, N>=1 would be all of them. Coincindentally, I'll note that transition strategy was what was in place before the social contract changed; but that was only possible because the social contract at the time allowed either the source or the target release policy to be chosen by the project. > The > main question, for me, is whether any of the so-far proposed resolutions > achieves the goal of establishing an exception for sarge. I give up. Does it? Why do you think the only, or even best, way of answering that question is to ask me? Seriously: you _need_ to think this issue through if you actually care about the outcome. I'm happy to serve as a brick wall for you to talk at, but I'm not going to do your thinking for you. This is _your_ decision to make. > To me, it seemed very clear from the discussion so far, that such an > exception was what many people wanted. That you, obviously, failed to > conceive this Huh? I _made_ the exception in the first place. That's why folks were calling me immoral and a hypocrite. Try to keep up. > tells me that it was good to discuss with _you_ what you > think about the effects of the proposals, and not to carry on discussing > with other people who have long understood what the proposers of the > "make an exception" proposals want. Dude, you can have _whatever_ you want and you don't need to convince me. Want the exception right now, no changes to the social contract necessary? Convince the tech ctte, or overrule them by GR. Want something else? You can do that too, it's just a GR away. Want to appoint yourself RM so you can make these decisions? That's just a GR away too. Want to make yourself supreme dictator so you can quash this idiotic squabbling, write up a GR for that if you like! The world's your oyster! Suck it up. > It also tells me that I should keep on with my doubts whether the > desired effect, an exception for sarge, can be achieved with one of the > current proposals. Maybe Raul's can do that better. I hope to find this > out in a discussion with you. We established in the last vote that me having a discussion on -vote isn't sufficient; and it seems to me it's entirely counterproductive. How about you, and everyone else who cares, have the discussion instead? > Maybe this discussion can get more > fruitful now that we are at a point were it is clear that the wording of > the proposals is indeed bad (in the sense that it made you miss the main > point that I, and probably many others, see). Dude, it doesn't matter if I miss the point or not; this decision is delegated to the technical ctte; as long as they see the point, all is fine in the world. > > None of the above required any special RM superpowers to think through. > But the question of whether any of the proposals would cause the RM to > establish such an exception is a question that can be answered by the > RM. Sure, that's easy: definitely not. I delegated that decision to the tech ctte, so whether an exception is granted or not, it won't be by my hand. Geez. There are simple answers here, if you really can't work them out for yourself, this whole exercise in democracy is a waste of time. 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