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

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

On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.

Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the
social contract in the statement.

I like the statement so far, however, I am concerned that the criteria
we applied to woody might not the same criteria we were apply prior to
GR 2004_003, or at least that everybody might not feel that way.

So, trying again, how about "the same criterion that were applied prior
to GR 2004_003?" Does this avoid assuming the changes to the social
contract were not editorial in nature?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: