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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:01AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:

> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > Quoting Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>:

> > > > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > > > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > > > tought about this.

> > > The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.

> > Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of
> > this issue that are capable of acting like children.

> > Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come
> > through my mailbox the first time.

> I'm glad you enjoyed.  It was a great fun.  But, you know, since I'm not
> subscribed to -legal, I had to find another way.  There was a choice between
> simply closing the silly bug, or playing a bit with extremists for free (as
> beer!!!)

Yeah, um, if you had closed the bug, I would have reopened it immediately.
Unless you persuade the release managers that the GFDL complies with the
DFSG, amend the DFSG so that it *does* comply, or invoke the technical
committee, this is a release-critical issue for etch as listed on
<http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt>; playing BTS tennis isn't
going to make that go away.   I'm sorry, but whether something is a
release-critical bug is just not your decision to make personally.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: