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

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

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:12:06PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> writes:
> > 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.
> Manoj's proposal does not propose to do this, but instead enacts
> comprehensive guidelines to control all such changes now and in the
> future.  For this reason, I support his as the cleanest and most
> well-considered and far-reaching option.  This is the one that I
> therefore intend to rank first.

Thanks Thomas for your answer. This is fair enough, I tried to propose a
solution amenable to most people, not a perfect solution for everybody.
In the interest of the discussion, I will explain why I felt I could not
support entirely Manoj's proposal.

> Like your proposal, it issues a new statement, but unlike yours, works
> for the future cleanly and prevents the need to revisit the issue
> every time.

But it specifically state that:

<< In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that
release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to
release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our
commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on
as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance
with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to
security releases and point releases as well. >> 

Which imply that 2004_003 _did_ modify the meaning of the SC, which I do
not believe. For me it was just an editorial change. Being a
mathematician, I feel unacceptable to support a statement I do not hold
for true. 

However I do not believe it make sense to settle the issue of whether
2004_003 change or do not change the meaning of the SC by a vote, 
since it is a matter of language and so we lack standing.

What we have standing for, however, is what we will allow in main for
Sarge.  I propose we use the same rules as for Woody. It seems it is an
intended side effect of most of the others proposal so far. So why not
just settle on that ? 

If future changes in the SC require a transition document, this document
could be added at that time, but I am personally reluctant to change to
our fundation documents, which served us well for more than 6 years.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: