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

Re: Proposal G

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:09:16 +0200, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> said: 

> * 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

	We first put a public BTS in place, and _then_ we made the

> on non-free software?

	We did not release hamm with non-free software after we made
 the promise; but we can always delay releases. Releasing regularily
 is not something we can prmise to do -- unoless, of course, you
 propose we just release on schedule, ready or not, and pay no
 attention to rc bugs.

	In any case, this seems like an orthogonal issue to this GR.

>> 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

	But the SC plainly states that his scruples are
 warranted. You may chose to overrule the SC, but please say so up

> 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.

	Proposal E directly addresses both the release of sarge, and
 the conflict of sarge currently with the social contract, and puts in
 a sunset clause for such a dispensation, taking care to address
 point releases and security updates. I think that the differences
 are significant.

	Your opinion is noted. I am not sure you have convinced me,

Human kind cannot bear very much reality. T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets:
Burnt Norton"
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: