release policy.
On the flip side, the constitution says The Technical Committee does
not engage in design of new proposals and policies, and I'm wondering if
Anthony is expecting us to do so instead of deciding on specific issues.
I think we'd have no problem ratifying a problem, or deciding
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 07:59:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Is it acceptable to everyone if the technical committee tacitly approves
the current release policy?
No.
[Which is to say -- we've seen it, we've not raised any significant
reasons to change any of it, so we're opting
Is it acceptable to everyone if the technical committee tacitly approves
the current release policy?
[Which is to say -- we've seen it, we've not raised any significant
reasons to change any of it, so we're opting for the default which is
that it's ok.]
?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Raul Miller writes (release policy):
Attached, below, is AJ's release critical policy, in the context of
sarge.
I'm thinking we should ratify it, as is. As soon as possible.
Gads, do we really need to ratify the entire text of this document ?
I'm thinking we should ratify a changed
that the Developers intent is that the release
policy for sarge should not be affected by the Social Contract
changes in GR 2004-003, and that the policy should remain de facto
unchanged.
We have been delegated the question of the release policy for sarge,
in the light of the General
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:17:23 -0400, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Attached, below, is AJ's release critical policy, in the context of
sarge.
I'm thinking we should ratify it, as is. As soon as possible.
I think we should edit the bit about dfsg freeness may
become a
6 matches
Mail list logo