1 |
El 29/03/18 a las 15:09, Ulrich Mueller escribió: |
2 |
> Either that, or if we change it we should be very cautious not to do |
3 |
> any radical changes. Here is my suggestion for the first paragraph: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> | This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall |
6 |
> | development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development |
7 |
> | team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian |
8 |
> | Social Contract. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Please |
9 |
> | send them to our gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Or as a pseudo-diff with line breaks inserted (since in the markdown |
12 |
> source it is all in one long line): |
13 |
> |
14 |
> --- a/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md |
15 |
> +++ b/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md |
16 |
> @@ -12 +12 @@ |
17 |
> This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall |
18 |
> development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development |
19 |
> team. Parts of this document have been derived from the [Debian |
20 |
> Social Contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract). |
21 |
> -It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been |
22 |
> -clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been |
23 |
> -removed. |
24 |
> -Comments are welcome. |
25 |
> +Suggestions for improvements are welcome. |
26 |
> Please send them to our |
27 |
> -[gentoo-dev@l.g.o](mailto:gentoo-dev@l.g.o) |
28 |
> +[gentoo-project@l.g.o](mailto:gentoo-project@l.g.o) |
29 |
> mailing list. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Rationale: |
32 |
> |
33 |
> 1. Our version is clearly derived from the Debian social contract, |
34 |
> so removing the attribution would be bad style. Also [1] explictly |
35 |
> says: "Other organizations may derive from and build on this |
36 |
> document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do." |
37 |
> |
38 |
> 2. That there are augmentations and removals follows from the fact |
39 |
> that it is a derived document, so I agree that the third sentence |
40 |
> is completely redundant and can be removed. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> 3. The "are welcome" wording is reminiscent of "patches are welcome". |
43 |
> Keeping it because I like this. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> 4. Avoid the debate if this is primarily a council or trustees matter. |
46 |
> Members of both bodies should listen to gentoo-project, so using |
47 |
> this list seems right. Also I expect changes to be rare, so this |
48 |
> shouldn't add any significant traffic to the ML. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Another question, should we add a version number to the document (as |
51 |
> Debian does for theirs)? Or alternatively, the date of last update? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Ulrich |
54 |
> |
55 |
> [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html |
56 |
|
57 |
Hi Ulrich! |
58 |
|
59 |
That propossal also works for me. |
60 |
|
61 |
Regarding the date or versioning, in the days of old the GuideXML |
62 |
document carried out the version and date of last change. (See for |
63 |
example |
64 |
https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/main/en/contract.xml?r1=1.10&r2=1.11) |
65 |
and the date of the last update could be see on the tab on the right |
66 |
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080321045304/http://www.gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml) |
67 |
with the migration to the wiki I don't think this is noted unless you go |
68 |
to the revision history so maybe we could start the document by adding |
69 |
"This Social Contract was last updated on *date*". *date* is obviously a |
70 |
placeholder. |
71 |
|
72 |
If you want I can collect the whole thing together into a single propossal. |
73 |
|
74 |
Klondike |