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

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

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 08:20:28AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I, for one, have not dismissed arguments that the social contract
> may allow us to follow the old release schedule, and that a strict
> interpretation of the social contract may not be correct.  I just haven't
> seen any such arguments, yet, that I'm comfortable advocating.

Accordingly, I will give some arguments:

1°) We publish woody on our server and we are in the process of release
Debian 3.0r3. Is it in disregard of the Social contract ? If yes,
should we remove it and/or block the release of 3.0r3 ? If not, what rationale
do we apply that would not apply to sarge if we released it today ? Or
not make my proposal not violating of the SC?

2°) "Reaching compliance with the SC" is a moving target:

The only difference I see (given my position) between woody and sarge is
knowledge. We have more knowledge of possible violation of the DFSG and
how to track them today than one year ago, and probably less than in
one year. I think sharing knowledge is one the common value of our
organisation, and so it would be bit paradoxal if we end up paralysed by
knowledge, by finding problems faster than we can solve them. So if we
push things to the extreme, we won't be able to release ever without a
"moratory" on some DFSG issues. In some sense, it is what my proposal
do. Suppose a group of developers start to massively audit Debian
packages for DFSG violation. It would certainly be worthwhile for Debian
and Free Softwares in general. Would we be forced to ask them to stop
because they prevent us to release ? I think the project should be able
to overcome that kind of difficulties without changing the SC. 

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: