On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:38:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I think that I mistyped, and meant sarge when I said woody.
In that case: most of those GRs simply revert the social contract with different ideas of "how long". One goes further and establishes a pattern for future revisions of the social contract. On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:39:47AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > I'm trying to figure out why Anthony Towns won't answer a perfectly > straightforward question. In that context asking "what does all this mean for the release" seems like refusal to think. > > Ask him what? If a proposal is ok? What do you mean by "ok"? > > Ask him what his release policy would be vis-a-vis the issues we have > all been discussing here. Do you really expect him to go through the debian-vote archive and give a point-by-point breakdown of what each of the GRs in the context of that statement? Why isn't it sufficient that he's stated that his interpretation of the old SC allowed some packages and his interpretation of the new SC does not? If your interpretation of the new SC is that it does allow such packages why aren't you arguing that? Maybe your interpretation of the old SC is that it didn't allow those packages either? But if that's the case, why would you want to vote for a GR that attempts to establish an SC that does allow those packages? There might be reasonable questions, but if so they're waiting to be posed. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
