Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Robert Millan (email@example.com) [081109 18:26]:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 05:57:04PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them
> > | against each other.
> I believe this phrase invalidates SC #1.
I'm not argueing about believes here, but what our Foundation Document
> - If it is not, what is, in your judgement, the correct interpretation of
> SC #1?
The Social Contract needs to be read as one coherent document and
neither does #1 habe precedence on #2, #3, .., nor #2, #3, ... have
precedence on #1. It is the same that different parts of e.g. a
constitution sometimes collide, and unless there are special rules on
that, one has to consider the situation, and how much each part might be
negativly affected by a decision, and then take the route that does - in
whole - the least damage.
Unless you think we help our users by either not releasing Lenny for
another year (or more), or that we help our users by moving the Linux
kernel plus the installer out of main, you seem to want to violate
social contract #4.
There are situations where a large violation of #4 is worse than a small
violation of #1. Of course, there are also situations where a small
violation of #4 is less worse than a large violation of #1. I don't
think calling the developers at large for a decision on each single case
is appropriate. However, there is a group of developers in Debian who
work hard on the release, and who seem the appropriate group to make the
day-to-day-decisions. For this reason, I think backing their current
authorization up to make decisions on behalf of Debian about the release
of Lenny is the correct way to go, and that's what my proposal says.