Re: Proposal G
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > That's a nice thing to say, but in the short term, what exactly does
>> > this mean for the various clases of controversial works under
>> > discussion here?
>> See the last part of the proposal.
> The last part of the proposal only indicates that we will apply
> "common sense," which is what we have (hopefully) been doing. That
> still doesn't say anything specific about the controversial classes of
> work which I assume you are concerned with.
>> This proposal does very clear adopt a certain policy for the
>> Release. I can't see any nebulous concept here, and overruling a
>> decision is very clear, according to 4.1.3 of the Constitution
>> (well, I should have written "overwrite" instead of "overrule").
> You just say that you overrule his decision, without indicating
> exactly which classes of work you will allow in that aren't currently
I disagree - did you read carefully? The resolution says:
| Furthermore, by this decision, we overrule the decision by the release
| manager in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg06588.html and
| re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date.
|  still available as today on
Do you think the contents of the link should be cited, instead of giving
only the URL, or what are you missing?
>> > Finally, this resolution seems to conflict with the social
>> > contract as it stands.
>> That's your interpretation of the social contract. With my
>> interpretation of the social contract, proposal F conflicts with the
>> social contract, as it ignores our users.
> I'm at a loss to understand what, if anything, proposal F has to do
> with proposal G.
Probably nothing. But Andreas' statement shows that your argument is
quite useless: All those proposed GR are about the fact that different
people interpret the (old and the new) SC differently. If everybody
thought that all of the proposed GR are in accord with (the meaning of)
the SC, we wouldn't need any GR. Therefore, if you say "this resolution
seems to conflict with the SC", this isn't an argument against the
wording of the GR, whether it is "allowed" in the limits of our
constitution and the like - it just means that you will vote against
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie