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

Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)

* MJ Ray (mjr@dsl.pipex.com) [040601 11:25]:
> On 2004-06-01 09:19:15 +0100 Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:

> >I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the
> >resolution:
> Don't you need to sign it?

According to my mail program, it was signed.

> >We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were
> where not were.


> >course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release
> >policy.
> So, if this option passes, the RM could just revert it to the 
> overruled one immediately?

There are a lot of insane actions that most delegates can do. The
ftp-masters can e.g. decide to remove glibc from the archive (there is
no rule against that). However, I trust them (and also the RM) enough
that they do no harm. Furthermore, Anthony has explicitly asked for a
decision by the TC or by the Developers, and so I expect that he will
accept this decision, and not revert the decision. And there is a good
reason why I wrote that: Please consider the case that some new item
needs to be addresses by our release policy (for example, a GFDL V2) -
do you really want that we do a new GR for each and every change in
the release policy, even if it's just a minor one? I for myself would
consider this too inflexible, and if we want, we can always overrule
any decision by the RM. (And, if somebody thinks any delegate is
obstructing the decisions by the developers, then the clean way would
be in my opinion to replace this delegate, and not to remove useful
tools that somebody doing the task of this delegate may need.)

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: