On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 18:54, Bob Tanner wrote: > Taking a queue from the debian people, what's are social contract? > I don't think it is worth our time to define something like a social contract at this point. Right now we should define exactly what the Fedora Legacy project will do in terms of engineering. Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I right? With far fewer developers on Legacy than Fedora Core/Extras, I highly doubt we would have the necessary manpower to do proper QA of pet-project add-ons unless they happen to be VERY popular. Look at fedora.us QA queue for an example of why this wont work. Far too many packages are interesting ONLY TO THE PACKAGER. fedora.us and I believe Legacy should REFUSE to publish anything that has not been thoroughly checked by more than one trusted person. This is especially important for Legacy because far fewer people would be doing quality assurance and real world testing. Now assuming the Legacy developers accept this scope of "perhaps 95% updates, maybe 5% add-ons if they are VERY popular" it seems silly to think of a social contract for a project with such small and narrow scope. I am however interested in discussing a social contract for the larger Fedora Core/Extras project. I would perhaps be nuke flamed for my iconoclastic views regarding market realism, Open Source and COOPERATION with non-free [1]. Please start the thread in f-d-l if you really want to begin that discussion. I just hope this doesn't cause me to be excommunicated. Warren [1] I am really getting off topic.... but I consider this kind of distribution to be GOOD... if Macromedia seizes to neglect us. http://macromedia.mplug.org
