Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Folks have advocated that course of action: Thomas Bushnell and Manoj have
> both indicated they don't think the social contract needs to be followed
> so strictly as to require the release policy in question.
This is almost right, but not quite, and I think the confusion about
it has been endemic.
In my opinion, we have not been following the social contract strictly
ever. Ever. I'm always interested in seeing it followed more
strictly, however. It's not that I don't think it needs to be; from
where I sit, however, it has *never* been, and bringing ourselves into
compliance necessarily takes time.
I understand that your understanding is quite different: from where
you sit, we have always been following the social contract, by
deciding that documentation and parts of device drivers are not really
software.
But I wholeheartedly support Manoj's proposal, because I think it
would do much good to make explicit the rule that we adapt to changes
in the rules over time, and not by sudden instantaneous jumps.
Thomas
Reply to: