Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 06:32:48AM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:03:43AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread
> > along the following lines:
> > But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does
> > the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practical issues
> > (`should we release Sarge in this state, or delay') !
> I posted a comment a long time ago, which might bear repeating
> (something close to the text below IIRC).
> The Debian developers changed their policy and fundamental documents
> when the Sarge release was 90% complete. It would be inequitable to
> release Sarge under the changed terms and conditions. Accordingly,
> we choose to release the Sarge release under the same Social Contract
> and DFSG as were in place for the Woody release.
I tried to post a proposal to that effect:
Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
That proposal might be perfected but I think it is not too far from what
you are proposing.
> [The key word here is probably inequitable - we can't hold a whole
> release to something we only agree to close to the end. I'm not
> suggesting this as binding precedent for any future release - lets
> just ship Sarge OK?]
> FWIW, Steve Macintyre and a couple of others appeared to agree.
> Lets ship the bloody release - we're at rc1 of the installer which
> is what seems to have held us up for so long. I'm already hearing
> nay sayers telling me that Debian won't release before 2005 at the
> earliest. Let's prove them wrong :)
Also, I see evidences that sarge follow more closely the DFSG than
previous releases we have made. All the issues mentionned with sarge
exist in woody, but some issues are fixed in sarge.