On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:12:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The question isn't what I think, it's what the project thinks. Before > the GR, the project leadership -- for this issue, the DPL, the archive > administrators, and the release manager -- were unanimous in thinking the > previous release policy was sound; various subscribers to debian-legal > disagreed. I don't think the previous release policy is sound any > longer, and in spite of my comments last month, nobody has come up with a > particularly sound counterargument, and presumably if I were wrong about > that and someone had, they'd have put that to the technical committee > to avoid any "bogus" sentiment that might be clouding my judgement.
Ok, but wait a minute "I don't think the previous release policy is sound any longer" makes it sounds like "reverting the social contract" is not the right solution to this problem -- this might carry the message, but in a lame fashion. Is that what you have said? In other words, I'm thinking this might be a better GR: We resolve to release Sarge as expediently as possible based on the current set of packages which have been designated as release candidates for Sarge, regardless of the state of DFSG compliance of any of those packages. Instead of relying on the DFSG for packages which have a "doesn't satisfy the DFSG" bug, we will rely on the legality of distributing those packages which are questionable and have been Sarge candidates since 2003. Once Sarge has been released, we will put minimal effort into maintaining such packages (providing updates for seurity purposes, but dropping them from future releases if they are not made available under a DFSG license). If you now think that the old release policy is incorrect based on what you've learned about how the project thinks, rather than because of the wording changes in the social contract, then focussing on what the social contract says is not the right approach. If this is the case, a point made by the "ask what AJ thinks" crowd is relevant (though, granted, they were presenting that point in a lame fashion). Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
