On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:38:11PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 01:33:28PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > > Was the GFDL used in woody at all? > > > > Regardless, I think the statement should use more definite language than > > "the same criterion as for our preceding release." Does anyone have any > > good ideas? > > No, it should not as any more precise definition involves a discussion > of the meaning of the SC and a major feature of my proposal is to delay such > discussion until sarge is released. But in the meantime, we proceed as usual. > > We have not questionned the meaning of the SC for 5 years, so delaying > this debate a bit should be possible. > > I hope you understand my position.
Yes, I could understand wanting to avoid involving the meaning of the social contract in the statement. I like the statement so far, however, I am concerned that the criteria we applied to woody might not the same criteria we were apply prior to GR 2004_003, or at least that everybody might not feel that way. So, trying again, how about "the same criterion that were applied prior to GR 2004_003?" Does this avoid assuming the changes to the social contract were not editorial in nature? -- gram
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
