On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:09:16AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * 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? Why are we so worried about what we can and can't do? Surely the interesting question is what we _should_ do? Presumably there are some things we can do that we shouldn't, right? > > 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. Yay, vote  unscrupulous delegates. There are two issues here: does the old policy violate the social contract, and does that matter? Only if the project thinks the answer to both questions is "yes" is there a problem -- and if they do, presumably they'll rank this option below "Further Discussion" and most/all of the other options. If the majority of the project don't think both are the case, is there much point standing in the way of that proposal? I'm still amazed that there hasn't even been any micro-consensus-building leading to some of the alternative proposals getting merged or dropped. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature