Okay, so here's the alternate proposal. I understand Raul at least
disagrees with paragraph (3) (and obviously the conclusions based on
that), but I'm not sure we have any good way of noting that difference
of opinion -- perhaps we should include the previous draft in the vote?
Courts and parliamentary committees include minority views (and the
arguments for them) in their final reports; something like that might
be worth doing here too.
Either way, I propose the following, call for a vote on it, and vote
in favour:
WHEREAS
1. The committee has been asked by Robert Millan, the submitter of
Bug#353278 and a former developer, to overrule the decision by the
maintainer of the ndiswrapper package, Andres Salomon, to include
that package in the main component of the archive, and for it to be
moved to the contrib component; and
2. The committee is empowered under section 6.1(4) of the constitution to
overrule a maintainer by a 3:1 majority vote, and empowered under section
6.1(1) to decide on any matter of technical policy; and
3. The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer
on top of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface for
Windows NDIS drivers, and that in order to provide this compatability
layer, no non-free software is required; and
4. The primary use for this compatability layer is to run non-free
Windows drivers for hardware not directly supported by Linux, though
a very limited number of free drivers using the NDIS format also
exist; and
5. The technical policy in this matter states that: (debian-policy
3.6.2.2, section 2.2.1)
[...] packages in _main_
* must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or
execution
and: (debian-policy 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.2)
Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ are:
* free packages which require _contrib_, _non-free_ packages or
packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or
execution, and
* wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
programs.
THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT
6. It is appropriate for the committee to consider this request; and
7. The current ndiswrapper package does not require any non-free
software at either compilation time or installation time to fulfill
its designated purpose; and
8. As such the ndiswrapper package complies with current technical
policy as regards to its suitability for main; and
9. If the ndiswrapper package come to depend on non-free software at
compilation time or installation time, such as by prompting the user
for a Windows driver CD, at that time the ndiswrapper package would
be required to be moved to contrib.
IN ADDITION
10. The committee endorses the decisions of the maintainer of ndiswrapper
and the ftpmaster team in including the package in the main component
as being in compliance with Debian technical policy; and
11. The committee endorses the existing policy on the suitability of packages
for the main and contrib components; and
12. The committee offers its thanks to Robert Millan for raising the
issue; to Wouter Verhelst and others for their input on the topic;
and to Andres Salomon for his ongoing efforts in maintaining the
ndiswrapper packages.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature