On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote: > > > --------------------- > > > > > > 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." > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > Was the GFDL used in woody at all? > > Regardless, I think the statement should use more definite language than > "the same criterion as for our preceding release." Does anyone have any > good ideas? No, it should not as any more precise definition involves a discussion of the meaning of the SC and a major feature of my proposal is to delay such discussion until sarge is released. But in the meantime, we proceed as usual. We have not questionned the meaning of the SC for 5 years, so delaying this debate a bit should be possible. I hope you understand my position. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballombe@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Attachment:
pgpJzVUEPBCR3.pgp
Description: PGP signature