Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely "delay
> the SC change until Sept 1st 2004", "delay the SC change until sarge
> releases", "apologise", "revert to SC 1.0", "create a transition guide
> for the SC and DFSG", "reaffirm the new SC".
>
> The last option failed to achieve even a simple majority (188 ranked
> it below further discussion, 155 ranked it above), each of the other
> options achieved a 2:1 supermajority, but only the "delay the SC change"
> options achieved the required 3:1 supermajority.
Which pretty much argues for the position that the project wants the new
SC, but is willing to compromise on the timeline of achieving it.
>> Well, i believe that both of them basically said the same thing.
>
> Yes, we've had that discussion; the key point is you used the word
> "software" to cover more of the contents of main, than others did.
The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that,
according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently,
while you said somewhere that it hadn't...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: