On Mon, 10 May 2004, Raul Miller wrote: > After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the > social contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks > haven't thought things through very far.
Quite a few of us actually have thought stuff through a bit, and even indicated what GR 2004-003 was going to do to ajt.[1][2] On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: > And I don't see much point making the decision on whether we move > non-free documentation out of main (and keep it out) as part of > the social contract rather than doing it in the usual way: > deciding we want to do it, and having the appropriate delegates > and maintainers decide how to work towards that. I would imagine that making the decision as part of the SC would be equivalent to "deciding we want to do it". [1] [Not that anyone was expecting the reaction that it got, but we knew what it was going to do regarding the documentation!=software issue.] Don Armstrong 1:http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040129.175834.81387bcc.html 2:http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040130.083703.c5778b4e.html -- I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
