On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:26:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > It seemed obvious to me, before the vote, that changes in the Social > Contract would be handled the same way as changes in our other policy > documents; that we would not instantly expect to conform to a new > policy, but would instead continually try to get close to our goals, > treating violations of policy as bugs.
Except... this wasn't a policy document, it was a foundation document. Policy has an explicit provision supporting the release of packages under a previous version of policy (this was 5.6.10, last time I looked), but foundation documents are not governed by policy -- it's the other way around. There was no provision in the new social contract for the continued use of the old social contract. > Anthony's is another plausible interpretation, but it was surprising > to me because it seemed so clear to me that of course we'd phase the > changes in the same sort of way we phase every other change in. But, you're asking him to address concepts which you haven't bothered to express (and possibly: concepts which you haven't bothered to think about). How is it reasonable to say "I don't have any defensible reason for thinking we would do A, but I was surprised that we didn't do A, and I think you're hiding something from me because you won't tell me about some B that I also don't have any right to expect that you're going to upset me with by not doing." ? Put another way: what OTHER issue (besides replacing one document with another with no provisions for grandfathering the first) could possibly be significant here? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
