Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:06:25 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> Reading debian-vote, I think it would be helpful if we stated our
> opinion formally. There still seems to be some dispute.
I agree with the first part of this.
> I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a
> vote. I'm hoping we can get enough of the TC to vote in favour to
> get an official resolution well before the close of voting.
> Headline advice: we recommend that Developers vote as follows:
> either B,D,E,C,A,F,FD (2453167) Grandfather clause for Sarge or
> D,B,E,C,A,F,FD (4253167) Rescind Social Contract changes
> It seems to us that:
> * The Social Contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
> release of Sarge as-is.
> * We would like to see Sarge's release go in parallel with the
> time-consuming fixes to the copyright problems.
> Therefore:
> * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the Social
> Contract. If no waiver is forthcoming, then Sarge will not be
> released until all of the problematic material has been sorted
> out.
> * If such a grandfather resolution does not pass with a 3:1
> supermajority then the Social Contract is not waived and sarge
> should not be released until the non-free stuff is removed
> somehow.
> We are pleased to see this waiver process is happening and will
> probably result in a resolution in time. So:
> * The Release Manager should plan for such a resolution to either
> grandfather the existing situation, or permit the release of
> Sarge some other way. To do anything else would be to prejudge
> the issue.
> * Of the General Resolution currently being voted on, the effects
> as we see them on the Sarge release process are as follows:
> B,D,E: Sarge will go ahead (software quality permitting). C:
> Sarge will be delayed to remove certain non-free items not
> covered by the grandfather clause (see below).
> A: Sarge will go ahead if it can be done by 2004-09-01. F:
> Sarge will be delayed to remove the non-free `non-software'.
OK so far.
> We offer the following observations advice to the Developers as
> they cast their votes:
[SNIP]
I strongly feel we should not be in the position of advising
people how to vote.
> We also note that the Technical Committee has no formal authority
> in this area. The questions being disputed are not technical. Any
> authority we have derives only from Release Manager (who has
> delegated this controversial decision to us) and of course from our
> power to state our opinions.
This paragraph is OK as well.
manoj
--
He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder. M.C. Escher
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: