On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:34:15PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > As you seem to have conceded (for the purposes of this resolution) to > seeing the DFSG-violations fixed post-Lenny and with the linux-2.6 (with > Ben's work) and hopefully also glibc and portmap (now that Sun people > seem to be interested in looking for ways to help) being on a good way, > maybe it would be best to bring this up again should things not be > fixed, say, 2 months after the lenny release?
Hi Thomas, I appreciate the conciliatory tone of your message, but I think you've missunderstood my concerns. The position I'm trying to defend is very simple: We have the Social Contract for a reason, it is our promise to the free software community. And if the Release Team (or any team) feels we can't stand to our promises, and needs to override them somehow, this _must_ be done with the endorsement of the project, not because a few, chosen ones, decide it unilaterally. Whether the project decides that we need an exception that overrides SC #1 for the Nth time or not, that's a secondary problem as far as I'm concerned. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
