On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:45:40PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > Could you explain why this paragraph in proposal E is > > insufficient? > > > > " In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that > > release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to > > release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our > > commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on > > as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance > > with the new Social Contract. This exemption for "Sarge" applies to > > security releases and point releases as well." > > That one is fine -- I just forgot about that part of it. > > This is good enough that I'm now thinking I don't need to propose a > new GR.
Have you seen Bill Alombert's objections [1] to Manoj's proposal? It seems that Manoj's proposal assumes, like most of the others, that the changes to the current social contract are not editorial. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00329.html -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
