On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:19:40 +0200, Tore Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Every single one of the GR proposals that's on the table right now
> seems to me to suggest that the meaning -has- changed, and none
> speak of the changes as editorial. That seems to me as a fairly
> strong indication that people feel Mr. Towns' interpretation to
> have been the correct one.
> I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the
> changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial.
> I'd much rather just override the RM so that the old RC policy is
> reinstated, in the spite of the fact that is violating the social
> contract. But I guess there won't be a fitting option on the
> ballot for me..
As an author of one of these proposals, and as an individual
who still holds that the changes made in GR 2004_003 were
editorial in nature, I have this to say: despite what you or I
believe as individuals about the nature of the language chages in the
previous GR, we are in the current GR process because the release
The current proposal merely acknowledges the reality that
things changed: prior to the GR, we were on our way to releasing
sarge; post gr 2004 003, we are not.
I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand and pretend
nothing changed -- whether or not we believe anything should have
I could prove God statistically. -- George Gallup
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C