[gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1423 bytes --]

When you take a look at our current social contract
(http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml) you will read that it talks
about "Gentoo Linux" exclusively. However, with Gentoo growing and non-Linux
ports in the make, it might be wise to change the naming from "Gentoo Linux"
to "Gentoo".

The main question however is: "What is Gentoo"? When will we talk about
"Gentoo" and when do we talk about "a project" that "the Gentoo Project" is
working on?

Based on the feedback I gathered from the managers meeting and from
developers, I'd like to propose something along the following lines:

"""
We call a collection of software "Gentoo" when:
- it in total is able to boot itself (self-hosting)
- it is actively developed by the Gentoo Project
- its main software management application is a native Portage
  
With "actively developed" it is meant that:
- the project has specific development/user channels (mailinglist & irc)
- the project is listed on the Gentoo Projects page [1]

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/index.xml?showlevel=2
"""

Any thoughts (both on the s/Gentoo Linux/Gentoo/ and Gentoo definition? I'm
sure there are lots of questions about the above proposal, so fire away.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Jason Cooper]

Sven Vermeulen (swift@gentoo.org) scribbled:
> When you take a look at our current social contract
> (http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml) you will read that it talks
> about "Gentoo Linux" exclusively. However, with Gentoo growing and non-Linux
> ports in the make, it might be wise to change the naming from "Gentoo Linux"
> to "Gentoo".
> 
> The main question however is: "What is Gentoo"? When will we talk about
> "Gentoo" and when do we talk about "a project" that "the Gentoo Project" is
> working on?
> 
> Based on the feedback I gathered from the managers meeting and from
> developers, I'd like to propose something along the following lines:
> 
> """
> We call a collection of software "Gentoo" when:
> - it in total is able to boot itself (self-hosting)
> - it is actively developed by the Gentoo Project
> - its main software management application is a native Portage

What about an embedded system whose image was created using embedded
gentoo tools, but contains no package management?  Or a minimal package
management system (ipkg/apkg)?  Would that fall under "Embedded Gentoo" 
or "Gentoo" or some customized thing?


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Joshua Brindle]

Jason Cooper wrote:

>Sven Vermeulen (swift@gentoo.org) scribbled:
>  
>
>>When you take a look at our current social contract
>>(http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml) you will read that it talks
>>about "Gentoo Linux" exclusively. However, with Gentoo growing and non-Linux
>>ports in the make, it might be wise to change the naming from "Gentoo Linux"
>>to "Gentoo".
>>
>>The main question however is: "What is Gentoo"? When will we talk about
>>"Gentoo" and when do we talk about "a project" that "the Gentoo Project" is
>>working on?
>>
>>Based on the feedback I gathered from the managers meeting and from
>>developers, I'd like to propose something along the following lines:
>>
>>"""
>>We call a collection of software "Gentoo" when:
>>- it in total is able to boot itself (self-hosting)
>>- it is actively developed by the Gentoo Project
>>- its main software management application is a native Portage
>>    
>>
>
>What about an embedded system whose image was created using embedded
>gentoo tools, but contains no package management?  Or a minimal package
>management system (ipkg/apkg)?  Would that fall under "Embedded Gentoo" 
>or "Gentoo" or some customized thing?
>
>  
>
This is tricky but consider, Gentoo is a metadistribution meaning it's a 
"distribution of distributions", any distribution built with Gentoo is 
itself also Gentoo. An embedded system built from scratch using portage 
(even if not on the same system/arch) is Gentoo, even if the resulting 
system doesn't need/use portage..

On the other side, using portage as a complimentary package manager to 
build non-system applications (such as on OSX, Solaris, IRIX, etc) is 
not Gentoo because the system wasn't resultant from a Gentoo installation.

It works,  embedded is Gentoo but Portage on non-self-hosted OS's isn't, 
as my 'definitions' are no doubt very confusing I'd like to stick with 
what Swift has put.

Joshua Brindle

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Pieter Van den Abeele]

On 24 Aug 2004, at 16:11, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> """
> We call a collection of software "Gentoo" when:
> - it in total is able to boot itself (self-hosting)
> - it is actively developed by the Gentoo Project
> - its main software management application is a native Portage
>
> With "actively developed" it is meant that:
> - the project has specific development/user channels (mailinglist & 
> irc)
> - the project is listed on the Gentoo Projects page [1]
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/index.xml?showlevel=2
> """

A few remarks:

- Makes no distinction between gentoo projects (such as keychain for 
instance), and gentoo operating systems (linux for instance, but not 
keychain).
- Self-hosting does not mean being able to boot itself. 
(http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Self-hosting)
- Cannot be a secondary package manager != has to be only package 
manager

My rewrite:

"""
GENTOO

The collection of:

	- free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about 
concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components, 
created by Gentoo Developers.
	- free software developed by Gentoo Developers.

GENTOO OPERATING SYSTEM:

	A Gentoo Operating System is an operating system that satisfies these 
requirements:

		- Self-hosting: The operating system can build itself from scratch 
using the tools and metadata distributed as "Gentoo".

	If a product associated with a Gentoo project does not satisfy these 
requirements the product does not qualify as a Gentoo Operating System.

GENTOO PROJECT

	A Gentoo Project is a project listed in the Gentoo Metastructure.
	A product associated with a Gentoo Project does not need to qualify as 
a Gentoo Operating System for the project to qualify as a Gentoo 
Project.

"""

Best regards,

Pieter Van den Abeele


> Any thoughts (both on the s/Gentoo Linux/Gentoo/ and Gentoo 
> definition? I'm
> sure there are lots of questions about the above proposal, so fire 
> away.
>
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
>
> -- 
>  ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
>  (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
>  (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Tuesday 24 August 2004 18:48, Pieter Van den Abeele wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2004, at 16:11, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > """
> > We call a collection of software "Gentoo" when:
> > - it in total is able to boot itself (self-hosting)
> > - it is actively developed by the Gentoo Project
> > - its main software management application is a native Portage
> >
> > With "actively developed" it is meant that:
> > - the project has specific development/user channels (mailinglist &
> > irc)
> > - the project is listed on the Gentoo Projects page [1]
> >
> > [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/index.xml?showlevel=2
> > """
>
> A few remarks:
>
> - Makes no distinction between gentoo projects (such as keychain for
> instance), and gentoo operating systems (linux for instance, but not
> keychain).
> - Self-hosting does not mean being able to boot itself.
> (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Self-hosting)
> - Cannot be a secondary package manager != has to be only package
> manager
>
> My rewrite:
>
> """
> GENTOO
>
> The collection of:
>
>  - free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about
> concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components,
> created by Gentoo Developers.
>  - free software developed by Gentoo Developers.
>
> GENTOO OPERATING SYSTEM:
>
>  A Gentoo Operating System is an operating system that satisfies these
> requirements:
>
>   - Self-hosting: The operating system can build itself from scratch
> using the tools and metadata distributed as "Gentoo".
>
>  If a product associated with a Gentoo project does not satisfy these
> requirements the product does not qualify as a Gentoo Operating System.
>
> GENTOO PROJECT
>
>  A Gentoo Project is a project listed in the Gentoo Metastructure.
>  A product associated with a Gentoo Project does not need to qualify as
> a Gentoo Operating System for the project to qualify as a Gentoo
> Project.
>

I like this better too. For me a gentoo project is whatever projects are 
"officially" run by Gentoo. I think this description gives a good 
implementation of such an abstract notion and the additions make clear what a 
gentoo os is and how gentoo-macosx is a gentoo project, but not a gentoo 
operating system.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:30:33PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
[... Snip Pieter's proposal on Gentoo definitions ...]
> I like this better too. For me a gentoo project is whatever projects are 
> "officially" run by Gentoo. I think this description gives a good 
> implementation of such an abstract notion and the additions make clear what a 
> gentoo os is and how gentoo-macosx is a gentoo project, but not a gentoo 
> operating system.

I've shamelessly copied Pieter's definitions and pasted them in a copy of
the Social Contract. I've also added some changes to reflect "Gentoo"
instead of "Gentoo Linux", such as describing contributions for metadata and
documentation.

You are able to find the draft at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html. Comments are, as usual,
appreciated. Please give it a good read, it's not a lenghty document but
rather important one.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1339 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 02:32, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> You are able to find the draft at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html. Comments are, as usual,
> appreciated. Please give it a good read, it's not a lenghty document but
> rather important one.

"A Gentoo Operating System is an operating system that satisfies there
requirements:"

s/there/three

Also, only one requirement is there: self-hosting.

"A Gentoo Project is a project listed in the Gentoo Metastructure."

It could be helpful to link to the metastructure page when it says
"Gentoo Metastructure."

In referencing free software, it could be helpful to link to the FSF's
page describing exactly what that is. The first references seems to be:
"free software developed by Gentoo Developers."

The use of "depend" in Gentoo depending on non-free things remains
unclear. Infrastructure, etc. When we say Gentoo, do we mean the whole
Gentoo project or Gentoo Operating Systems? One could infer the latter
from what the contract says, especially the Note, but it can't hurt to
clarify it.

The "We will not hide problems" clause should be changed to reflect
occasional private bugs for personnel-related (and potentially
security-related, although I don't think this is being done yet) issues.

Thanks,
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Duncan]

Sven Vermeulen posted <20040901073242.GA8228@gentoo.org>, excerpted below,
 on Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:32:42 +0200:

> You are able to find the draft at
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html. Comments are, as usual,
> appreciated. Please give it a good read, it's not a lenghty document but
> rather important one.

Important, indeed.  The reason I'm here and not elsewhere is because of
the social contract and philosophy.  I'd read the usual stuff in LWN and
the various other press about build-from-source and all that, but when I
started looking seriously at Gentoo, the Gentoo approach to its
relationship with the community and whether and under what licenses it
released its code, were the FIRST things I actually checked out.  I cannot
and will not support proprietary or semi-proprietary work, or I wouldn't
have troubled myself jumping from MS after a decade there when I saw the
light, and I would have looked elsewhere or stayed with Mandrake if I
wasn't fully comfortable with Gentoo.

FWIW, when I mentioned my interest in one of the newsgroups I frequent,
someone mentioned the fork.  I looked it up, and found it highly ironic
all the accusations leveled at Gentoo, when the original choice of the GPL
license was what made the fork possible in the first place, and taking
Gentoo proprietary as was alleged to be part of the secret plan, extremely
problematic if not impossible altogether.  The contrast between those
accusations and reality only emphasized the value of Gentoo and its chosen
philosophy.

As for the draft..  the wording of the "Gentoo" definition looks a bit
shaky to me.  It could be taken to lay claim to /all/ the "intellectual
property" produced by Gentoo developers in the two given areas.  I'm sure
many are familiar with existing corporate practice to this effect.  Thus,
an additional clause "as they may choose to contribute it to the Gentoo
and larger open source community" might be in order.

Gentoo is the collection of:

* free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about concepts/domains
relevant to operating systems and their components, created by Gentoo
developers "as they may choose to contribute it to the Gentoo and
larger open source community"

* free software developed by Gentoo Developers "as they may choose to
contribute that too, to the Gentoo and larger open source
community"

... or something to that effect, anyway... the idea being that they may
have OTHER projects they are involved with, particularly as the
developers are volunteers and would be /expected/ to have other jobs and 
commitments, and Gentoo isn't going to demand that all THAT work ALSO be
made available to Gentoo.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 10:34, Duncan wrote:
> As for the draft..  the wording of the "Gentoo" definition looks a bit
> shaky to me.  It could be taken to lay claim to /all/ the "intellectual
> property" produced by Gentoo developers in the two given areas.  I'm
> sure many are familiar with existing corporate practice to this effect.
>  Thus, an additional clause "as they may choose to contribute it to the
> Gentoo and larger open source community" might be in order.
>
> Gentoo is the collection of:
>
> * free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about
> concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components,
> created by Gentoo developers "as they may choose to contribute it to
> the Gentoo and larger open source community"
>
> * free software developed by Gentoo Developers "as they may choose to
> contribute that too, to the Gentoo and larger open source
> community"
>
> ... or something to that effect, anyway... the idea being that they may
> have OTHER projects they are involved with, particularly as the
> developers are volunteers and would be /expected/ to have other jobs
> and commitments, and Gentoo isn't going to demand that all THAT work
> ALSO be made available to Gentoo.

I agree with you that the wording is not good. I don't think there was 
ever the intention to be that "broad". Also this is not supposed to be a 
legal document, more a guideline that clarifies what we see as gentoo, 
and what does not belong in gentoo anymore.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Duncan]

Paul de Vrieze posted <200409011331.24838.pauldv@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:31:24 +0200:

> Also this is not supposed to be a legal document, more a guideline that
> clarifies what we see as gentoo, and what does not belong in gentoo
> anymore.

Good point.. which I'd lost sight of. All those pre-definitions, you
know... <g>

Still, you and I agree the wording needs a bit of a change, as I do
believe that we should attempt to be accurate within reason.  If we are
going to have pre-definitions of that sort, we ought to make them /good/
ones!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1017 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 07:20:21AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
[... Wording of the definitions in the Social Contract ...]
> Still, you and I agree the wording needs a bit of a change, as I do
> believe that we should attempt to be accurate within reason.  If we are
> going to have pre-definitions of that sort, we ought to make them /good/
> ones!

http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html

I've changed the wording in the draft to read:

Gentoo is the collection of:

    * free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about
      concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components,
      contributed by various developers to the Gentoo project
    * free software developed by various Gentoo developers and
      contributed to the Gentoo project


Is this an improvement?

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Duncan]

Sven Vermeulen posted <20040909122534.GA8423@gentoo.org>, excerpted below,
 on Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:25:35 +0200:
 
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html
> 
> I've changed the wording in the draft to read:
> 
> Gentoo is the collection of:
> 
>     * free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about
>       concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components,
>       contributed by various developers to the Gentoo project
>     * free software developed by various Gentoo developers and
>       contributed to the Gentoo project
> 
> 
> Is this an improvement?

Answers my objection, definitely.

I did notice the contrasted wording between the two clauses,

* free knowledge...  contributed by /various/ /developers/..

* free software... developed by /various/ /Gentoo/ /developers/..

Was the omission of the word /Gentoo/ in the first case intentional?  More
precisely, is there a policy difference between documentation/metadata,
and software, such that contributions are accepted from a wider pool
(lacking the Gentoo specifier in various developers) in the case of the
former, as contrasted with the latter?

This is admittedly on the level of nit-picking, here.  I just saw the
parallel in the wording and wondered why the /Gentoo/ specifier was
included in the second case but not the first.  Unless there's a policy
difference (and I can see where there could be, documentation/metadata
doesn't quite have the security implications of executable code, after
all), I'd expect them to be parallel.   I'm just not familiar enough yet
with Gentoo policy to know if that difference is deliberate or not, and
reading it, that's the question that came to my mind.

In any case, it's certainly better to my  way of thinking than the former,
as the question of scope of claim is addressed, now.  As well, you did it
in fewer words than my proposal.  Concise is good (and not one of my
strongest points)! =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:35:14AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
> I did notice the contrasted wording between the two clauses,
> 
> * free knowledge...  contributed by /various/ /developers/..
> 
> * free software... developed by /various/ /Gentoo/ /developers/..
> 
> Was the omission of the word /Gentoo/ in the first case intentional?  

It was, but it looks like it's better if I remove "Gentoo" from both
clauses. Concerning "Gentoo", we shouldn't make any difference between
Gentoo and non-Gentoo developers. 

Updated the proposal.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen


-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Duncan]

Sven Vermeulen posted <20040911113639.GB9039@gentoo.org>, excerpted below,
 on Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:36:39 +0200:

> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:35:14AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
>> I did notice the contrasted wording between the two clauses,
>> 
>> * free knowledge...  contributed by /various/ /developers/..
>> 
>> * free software... developed by /various/ /Gentoo/ /developers/..
>> 
>> Was the omission of the word /Gentoo/ in the first case intentional?  
> 
> It was, but it looks like it's better if I remove "Gentoo" from both
> clauses. Concerning "Gentoo", we shouldn't make any difference between
> Gentoo and non-Gentoo developers. 
> 
> Updated the proposal.

Cool! =:^)

Here's the link again, so I don't have to go find it in the upline <g>:

http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html

OK with that, but now this looks strange:

Gentoo is the collection of: 
* [...]

* free software developed by various developers and contributed to the
Gentoo project


"free software /developed/ by various /developers/"?  Developed/developers
is just repetitive enough to be grating to my thought process. 
/Definitely/ nitpicking, but what about this for that bullet item? Just
leave out the "by various developers and", leaving:

* free software contributed to the Gentoo project

or maybe:

* free software /as/ contributed to the Gentoo project

IMO, if we are going to remove the former distinction, the whole
"developed" phrase becomes superfluous, and omitting it doesn't change the
meaning.

Or.. that looks /too/ simple.  Maybe I'm missing something! <g>

OK, getting back to the purpose of the two-fold definition anyway,
the distinction between software and metadata, keeping in mind the fact
that while most of "Gentoo" is metadata on other people's creations,
Gentoo does have a few software projects of its own, how about:

* free software as /created/ /for/ the Gentoo project

or coming back somewhat toward your current wording:

* free software /created/ /by/ various developers /for/ the Gentoo project.

... or s/created/contributed/ and s/for/to/

* free software contributed by various developers to the Gentoo project.

Pardon my thinking in print.. <g>

In any case, the existing wording works, even if I think it's a bit
grating to my thought process <g>, so the suggestions above are just that,
minor suggestions, make use of them or not, as desired.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Allen Parker]

A Gentoo Operating System is an operating system that satisfies there
requirements:

s/these/there/


On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:37:23 -0700, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
<snip>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 08:37:23AM -0700, Duncan wrote:
> * free software contributed by various developers to the Gentoo project.

I've taken this sentence (and the fix by Alan) and put out a new draft,
still available on http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html

Keep on nitpicking; as Paul stated previously, it's not the intention to
write it in legalese but it must be as clear as possible so everybody
understands the sentiment of it.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 462 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:40:40PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I've taken this sentence (and the fix by Alan) and put out a new draft,
> still available on http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html

Sorry, Allen, not Alan.

My short-term memory is fubar'd.

      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]