Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > Moin,
> > >
> > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
> > > > 60 days or more
> > >
> > > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who determines
> > > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be
> > > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days
> > > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.)
> > >
> > > But probably thats a minor point too.
> >
> > Fine with me. What does everyone else think?
> >
> > In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less concerned
> > if the time was increased?
>
> Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180. If someone feels strongly enough
> that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of
> course.
Now that I think, this means the options that only included my proposed
reform would not have the effect of preventing Lenny from releasing with
non-free code.
Since sorting that out would require even more complexity in the ballot, I
will propose a GR that only deals with what we do about Lenny, and re-send
my reform proposal later on. This also makes it easier for others to select
what they want to second.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: