Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Folks have advocated that course of action: Thomas Bushnell and Manoj have > both indicated they don't think the social contract needs to be followed > so strictly as to require the release policy in question.
This is almost right, but not quite, and I think the confusion about it has been endemic. In my opinion, we have not been following the social contract strictly ever. Ever. I'm always interested in seeing it followed more strictly, however. It's not that I don't think it needs to be; from where I sit, however, it has *never* been, and bringing ourselves into compliance necessarily takes time. I understand that your understanding is quite different: from where you sit, we have always been following the social contract, by deciding that documentation and parts of device drivers are not really software. But I wholeheartedly support Manoj's proposal, because I think it would do much good to make explicit the rule that we adapt to changes in the rules over time, and not by sudden instantaneous jumps. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
