On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 03:15:10PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > For example, I don't think it is reasonable even for those who support > > proposal E that the new SC isn't enforced after Sarge, and that not > > only Sarge but also Sarge+1 releases with non-free firmware and docs > > of questionable DFSG-compliance. However, proposal E would delegate > > that decision to the RM. > > Any proposal which wins a GR with a 3:1 majority over the default option > may replace some part of the social contract. So presumably there's > some other grounds you have for saying this. > > Furthermore, there is some support in the social contract for a mechanism > such as proposal E. The social contract is somewhat ambiguous on this > point, and there are people who interpret it differently (which seems, > to me, to justify leaving this as a GR), but...
If I understand correctly, the purpose of proposal E is that changes in SC do not affect a release that is in preparation at the time of performing the changes. My point is that the wording of proposal E is too permissive and doesn't really do what intended. See my previous post for the details. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
