codeofconduct page falsely claims 1.1 was released 2005-04-12
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Launchpad itself |
Triaged
|
Low
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
On the top of https:/
"The current version is 1.1, released 2005-04-12"
This isn't really true. I know why the date wasn't adjusted (so that signatures of 1.0 are still good enough to be a Ubuntu Member), but it is still wrong and reads strange. Especially in the light of this calling the older versions of the CoC in that light obsolete is also wrong because they are still valid to be a Ubuntu Member.
I'm not sure what exactly to suggest as improvement, at least the datereleased seems to be used for different purposes too, so touching that might break stuff. Maybe something along this lines would be an improvement:
"The current version is 1.1. It is deemed to be compatible with previous versions released after 2005-04-12 in the sense of being acceptable to become an Ubuntu Member. If you signed one of the previous versions you are though encouraged to sign the new version, too.
[...]
Older (still valid) versions of the Code of Conduct
"
I hope you get the idea, the current situation isn't really optimal, and is quite confusing.
Thanks in advance!
Rhonda
| affects: | launchpad → launchpad-registry |
| Changed in launchpad-registry: | |
| status: | New → Confirmed |
| Changed in launchpad-registry: | |
| status: | Confirmed → Triaged |
| importance: | Undecided → Low |
| Curtis Hovey (sinzui) wrote | #1 |
| tags: | added: codeofconduct |
| YoBoY (yoboy-leguesh) wrote | #2 |
This issue also affected the 1.0.1 CoC that was the current CoC for many years. Few people noticed since the version was the same year. The CoC is "backdated" so that all the signers of 1.0 and 1.0.1 are automatic signers of 1.1.
The correct fix is to add a separate attribute or rule to the model that manages compatibility. If all minor versions are backward compatible with their major version (ie 1.x is incompatible with 2.x) then the model could have a parsing rule instead of a date matching rule.