This is a description of the changes my proposal introduces when compared to the proposal from Andrew Suffield which I'm amending.
The proposal Andrew Suffield has introduced, to eliminate section 5 of the social contract, has two major aspects: [1] It indicates that we remove a number of packages which we are currently distributing (in my opinion: anything which doesn't make it into the stable release which is not in main, or which is in main but shouldn't be). [2] It eliminates section 5 of the social contract (which trys to describe our treatment of software which doesn't satisfy all requirements of the DFSG). It doesn't attempt to deal with any of the rest of the social contract, and Andrew has provided no rationale for this change. It might be worth noting that he's incorporated a few of my changes into his editorial fixes proposal -- these aren't about our relationship with our users so much as language cleanups to bring the social contract language in line with other changes. My proposal differs in a number of respects: [A] Mine documents and expands on existing practice, instead specifying that it change. [B] Mine incorporates editorial fixes, instead of deferring them for later. [C] Mine expands the description of our support for free software users in various ways. Andrew's is all about dropping support, and includes nothing about improving our relationship with our users [D] Andrew's puts a deadline on dropping a number of packages, and on dropping some of our user support (next stable release), mine does not. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
