Re: Proposal G
* Manoj Srivastava:
>> For our users, we promise to do regular releases; as a guideline, a
>> major release of the distribution should happen about once a year.
>
> On what basis do you think we can make this promise?
On the same basis that we promise not to hide bugs? Or not to rely on
non-free software?
> That policy violates the SC. You essentially told a delegate
> to go violate the social contract, and I don't think we can do that.
Ahem, this proposal tries to assure a delegate that his scruples are
unwarranted and that he should go on as previously planned. After
reading Anthony's comment <[🔎] 20040601093412.GA6433@azure.humbug.org.au>,
I think this is a non-issue anyway.
> As it stands, I do not think that this proposal meets the
> requirements for helping determine the changes in release schedule
> of sarge in voew of GR 2004_003; therefore I think it may need to go
> on a separate ballot (since it is there fore a separate issue). I
> need to think about it more before making an official ruling on
> this, and I am open to being persuaded either way.
As a whole, I think it's in line. IMHO, it's not more off target than
proposal E, for example.
--
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: bigpond.com, di-ve.com, fuorissimo.com, hotmail.com,
jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com,
tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com.
Reply to: