I second this amended GR. While I understand Steve's concern, I think that the actual result of sarge not making the September deadline will be a second GR to push the deadline back again. I'd rather just tie the changes in wording to Sarge's release and be done with it.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:47:04PM -0400, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > > Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > > further cause for deliberation. > > > I wish to propose the following amendment: > > That point 2. above be changed to read: > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the > Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of > the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without > further cause for deliberation. > > Rationale: > > > A fixed four month period should (based on current projections) give us > > ample time to release sarge, while not allowing so much time that > > maintainers are left to think that resolving the status of non-program > > components of Debian vis ? vis the DFSG is not an imminent concern. > > While a four month period should be enough time to release sarge, > without this amendment, we leave open the possibility that we do not > release in time and must repeat this process again. I think it's best > to declare explicitly how long this exception should remain in effect > rather than assume that we have picked a big enough window. Although > on the downside, it relieves some pressure to release sarge soon, but > it also prevents us from rushing to release by September 1 which may > result in an inferior product. > > I really hope that this amendment is not needed (i.e. we release by > September 1 anyways), but I think we should allow for the worst, just > in case. > > Steve (and all those who seconded the original resolution), I hope you > accept this amendment. Failing that, I would like to seek sponsors for > this amendment to the proposal. -- /-------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------\ | "We've got nothing to fear but the stuff that we're | | afraid of!" -- Fluble | \------- Listener-supported public radio -- NPR -- http://www.npr.org --------/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
