On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:58:49PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > Well, first off: Your appended text and the revised first clause don't > match identically. (binary-only firmware is only in the former, 3.1 > (codenamed sarge) only in the latter, for example). > > But more to the point: While I see that your amendment has its merits, > I'm a bit nervous about changing the actual text of the SC *now* and, > obviously, again after Sarge releases (or do we keep it until sarge+1 is > out? Or forever?). I would consider the text rather ugly and a > historical cludge at that point and voting again next month (haha) to > revert it would be tiresome.
I think both these points you've raised are addressed in the modified amendment (er ...) that I posted some minutes ago. What do you think of that? > Now, in real-world politics, laws usually have a date when they are > placed into action a certain time after they've been voted on. Further, > laws that change how things are being implemented (see, e.g. exhaust > norms for new cars in California) are usually granted quite a while > (sometimes, years) until they become binding. > > Thus, I would prefer a more general GR which states roughly the > following: > > "Changes to the Social Contract become binding for the release after the > one currently being worked on and are not applicable to already released > versions of Debian. However, the developers are being urged to implement > these changes in the currently developed release, if possible." This seems to be roughly what Steve Langasek's proposal does. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
