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

Re: Discussion - On proposal E (Transition Guide)

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > 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.
> Any proposal which wins a GR with a 3:1 majority over the default option
> may replace some part of the social contract.  So presumably there's
> some other grounds you have for saying this.
> Furthermore, there is some support in the social contract for a mechanism
> such as proposal E.  The social contract is somewhat ambiguous on this
> point, and there are people who interpret it differently (which seems,
> to me, to justify leaving this as a GR), but... 

If I understand correctly, the purpose of proposal E is that changes in SC
do not affect a release that is in preparation at the time of performing
the changes.

My point is that the wording of proposal E is too permissive and doesn't
really do what intended. See my previous post for the details.

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)

Reply to: