| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera |
| 4 |
> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I'd appreciate if the Council could produce their input regarding |
| 7 |
>> Daniel's propossal to modify the Gentoo Social Contract |
| 8 |
>> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8c8534195597ca34ebb3e3bb0a042b3e |
| 9 |
>> after the meeting. Mostly because I plan on bringing it up for |
| 10 |
>> approval on the next board meeting (and hopefully ratification on |
| 11 |
>> the next Foundation member vote) since nobody has come up with a |
| 12 |
>> better propossal yet. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> IMO it would make more sense to just change the list to |
| 15 |
> gentoo-project and fix the metastructure before having a debate over |
| 16 |
> which body oversees the social contract. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Either that, or if we change it we should be very cautious not to do |
| 19 |
any radical changes. Here is my suggestion for the first paragraph: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall |
| 22 |
| development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development |
| 23 |
| team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian |
| 24 |
| Social Contract. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Please |
| 25 |
| send them to our gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Or as a pseudo-diff with line breaks inserted (since in the markdown |
| 28 |
source it is all in one long line): |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
--- a/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md |
| 31 |
+++ b/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md |
| 32 |
@@ -12 +12 @@ |
| 33 |
This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall |
| 34 |
development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development |
| 35 |
team. Parts of this document have been derived from the [Debian |
| 36 |
Social Contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract). |
| 37 |
-It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been |
| 38 |
-clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been |
| 39 |
-removed. |
| 40 |
-Comments are welcome. |
| 41 |
+Suggestions for improvements are welcome. |
| 42 |
Please send them to our |
| 43 |
-[gentoo-dev@l.g.o](mailto:gentoo-dev@l.g.o) |
| 44 |
+[gentoo-project@l.g.o](mailto:gentoo-project@l.g.o) |
| 45 |
mailing list. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Rationale: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
1. Our version is clearly derived from the Debian social contract, |
| 50 |
so removing the attribution would be bad style. Also [1] explictly |
| 51 |
says: "Other organizations may derive from and build on this |
| 52 |
document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do." |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
2. That there are augmentations and removals follows from the fact |
| 55 |
that it is a derived document, so I agree that the third sentence |
| 56 |
is completely redundant and can be removed. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
3. The "are welcome" wording is reminiscent of "patches are welcome". |
| 59 |
Keeping it because I like this. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
4. Avoid the debate if this is primarily a council or trustees matter. |
| 62 |
Members of both bodies should listen to gentoo-project, so using |
| 63 |
this list seems right. Also I expect changes to be rare, so this |
| 64 |
shouldn't add any significant traffic to the ML. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Another question, should we add a version number to the document (as |
| 67 |
Debian does for theirs)? Or alternatively, the date of last update? |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Ulrich |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
[1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html |
Archives