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

Re: Call for Vote on GR 2004-004

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:31:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:34:12PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > >    5. All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the 
> > > situation created by GR (2004-003). But they still seem to put heavy 
> > > limitations on the post-sarge releases. This proposal solves them for 
> > > good.
> > This is now incorrect.
> Proposal F is not a proposal (in order) to get sarge out.

Yes.  You are logical and right.

But keeping rationale as is will cause an unintended effect of making
"Proposal F" to be confused as one of "GRs to get the sarge out".  So I
still want modification on my original rationale provided it does not
delay the whole process.

> > > Proposal F:
> > > The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise on freedom, and 
> > > will never knowingly issue another release (excluding point updates to 
> > > stable releases) that contains anything in the main or contrib sections 
> > > which is not free software according to the DFSG. 
> > Did any proponent of "Proposal F" showed us any valid exit path or
> > rationarized Sarge release issues or they told us "I do not care about
> > *release*". 
> I think they told us exactly what is written in the amendment.  You may
> draw your own conclusions about their intents, but as we've seen from GR
> 003, it's the wording that we're voting on, not "intent".

I agree that we are not voting on "intent".  But we need to understand
the words in the amendment.  "Rationale" tends to make effects of the
words clearer.  I was just fishing for some valid "rationale" which
proves that "Proposal F" will not perpetuate the current problem.  "I do
not care about *release*" was to get attention of folks behind "Proposal
F" :)  I was seeking follow up to Henning Makholm's post.
 Message-ID: <87wu3rt3wy.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: