El 29/03/18 a las 15:09, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> Either that, or if we change it we should be very cautious not to do
> any radical changes. Here is my suggestion for the first paragraph:
>
> | This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
> | development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
> | team. Parts of this document have been derived from the Debian
> | Social Contract. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Please
> | send them to our gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list.
>
> Or as a pseudo-diff with line breaks inserted (since in the markdown
> source it is all in one long line):
>
> --- a/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md
> +++ b/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.md
> @@ -12 +12 @@
> This social contract is intended to clearly describe the overall
> development policies and standards of the Gentoo project development
> team. Parts of this document have been derived from the [Debian
> Social Contract](https://www.debian.org/social_contract).
> -It is generally very similar to it except that certain parts have been
> -clarified and augmented while other parts deemed redundant have been
> -removed.
> -Comments are welcome.
> +Suggestions for improvements are welcome.
> Please send them to our
> -[gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org](mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org)
> +[gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org](mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org)
> mailing list.
>
> Rationale:
>
> 1. Our version is clearly derived from the Debian social contract,
>    so removing the attribution would be bad style. Also [1] explictly
>    says: "Other organizations may derive from and build on this
>    document. Please give credit to the Debian project if you do."
>
> 2. That there are augmentations and removals follows from the fact
>    that it is a derived document, so I agree that the third sentence
>    is completely redundant and can be removed.
>
> 3. The "are welcome" wording is reminiscent of "patches are welcome".
>    Keeping it because I like this.
>
> 4. Avoid the debate if this is primarily a council or trustees matter.
>    Members of both bodies should listen to gentoo-project, so using
>    this list seems right. Also I expect changes to be rare, so this
>    shouldn't add any significant traffic to the ML.
>
> Another question, should we add a version number to the document (as
> Debian does for theirs)? Or alternatively, the date of last update?
>
> Ulrich
>
> [1] https://www.debian.org/social_contract.en.html

Hi Ulrich!

That propossal also works for me.

Regarding the date or versioning, in the days of old the GuideXML
document carried out the version and date of last change. (See for
example
https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/main/en/contract.xml?r1=1.10&r2=1.11)
and the date of the last update could be see on the tab on the right
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080321045304/http://www.gentoo.org:80/main/en/contract.xml)
with the migration to the wiki I don't think this is noted unless you go
to the revision history so maybe we could start the document by adding
"This Social Contract was last updated on *date*". *date* is obviously a
placeholder.

If you want I can collect the whole thing together into a single propossal.

Klondike