> > In other words, with the new social contract, there should be no > > problem releasing Sarge with GFDL and other such stuff in main?
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 10:01:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Sure, since we were practically at the brink of releasing > Sarge, anyway, and, as I said in the proposal life does not stop > just because we changed a foundation document. ... > I think that this is not something the tech ctte needs to > hand to the project from up on high. I believe that we ought to > continue to support users, bug fixes, overdue releases, etc. while > we work towards changing stuff to meet the new SC --- however, this > is something we need to get a buy in from the majority of the > developers. > > There is a time and a place for tech ctte to take things into > its own hands, but, this, I think, is not such a time. I guess what you're saying is that you think "releasing Sarge" is a good idea, but not such an obviously valid idea that we should proceed with that idea without a GR that explicitly states that that's what we should do? If that's the case, I don't see why Anthony should treat it as such an obviously valid idea that he should proceed with that idea without a GR that explicitly states that that's what he should do. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
