Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

To: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Cc: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:50:03 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 22646.14347.144154.497057@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 3194402.efPJBb10Cu@kitterma-e6430>
References: <[🔎] 20170110020819.h7dyrqxvywotn22r@hephaestus.silentflame.com> <[🔎] 3194402.efPJBb10Cu@kitterma-e6430>

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3"):
> What is the definition of serious and what is the definition of limited?

It is excellent that Sean's proposal for the SC leaves that vague.

Of course we may want to actually implement some more formal policy,
but I don't think we should write that down in the SC where it is hard
to change.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to:

References:
- Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
  - From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>
- Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
  - From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
Next by Date: Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
Previous by thread: Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
Next by thread: Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread