On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > I believe that one of the arguments used is that by doing so, the RT > > would be overriding a foundation document, and developers cannot do so > > without $higher_power. > > Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document > aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract, > but chooses a certain interpretation (that I think is the correct one > btw). Other people obviously prefer a different interpretation, and so > the relevant question is: Whose interpretation is the binding one? > Currently, it seems to me that unless decided otherwise by a GR, the > release team has the final say (as explained by Russ).
When you say "chooses a certain interpretation", are you referring to the one in which SC #4 is interpreted in a way that cannot be complied with no matter what, only to use this impossibility as proof that SC #4 and SC #1 contradict each other, and in turn resolving that because the SC is inconsistent, SC #1 is meant to be read "figuratively"? I think we discussed this before [1]. In any case, if you think the SC is so badly broken, you should be ammending the text to disambiguigate it, like we did in GR 2004 / 003, or even in GR 2003 / 003. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00039.html -- 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]