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

Re: Discussion - On proposal E (Transition Guide)

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 10:47:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:07:02 +0200, Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> said: 
> > Seems like the use of the word "limited" is ambigous. Any amount of
> > time is "limited" by a greater one.
> 	I am willing to trust that people implementing the release
>  policies are reasonably competent, and shall not be working against
>  the spirit of a foundation document.

It's fine if you are willing to trust, but I certainly am not and I don't
think it's generaly reasonable to assume current and future release managers
aren't likely to interpret a foundation document textualy while disregarding
its spirit ("verba volant scripta manent"). Specialy because the release
managers are not delegated directly or indirectly by the Developers (as they
should be).

Take the position of our current release manager as example. Anthony Towns
recently said this:

  "Developers are asked to read/agree with/support/obey the social contract as
  part of the new maintainer process, but beyond that there's no requirement
  that they treat the social contract with more respect than, say,
  debian-policy, _except_ in so far as we're not allowed to change it except
  through a 3:1 vote."
  (from http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00399.html)

>  So limited is whatever
>  reasonable time it is that it takes for us to meet the directives of
>  the social contract.

That definition is better, but the current wording doesn't imply it. I still
have reservations on what the interpretation of "reasonable" could be, though.
For example, I don't think it is reasonable even for those who support
proposal E that the new SC isn't enforced after Sarge, and that not only Sarge
but also Sarge+1 releases with non-free firmware and docs of questionable
DFSG-compliance. However, proposal E would delegate that decision to the RM.

Could you ammend proposal E to require that up-to-date compliance with SC
is archived after a reasonable period of time after release, and in no case
lagged for two consecutive releases?

If you can fix that ambiguity, then I'll find your proposal reasonable and
will second it. (I still prefer proposal F though, but that's beside the point)

Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: