[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

# Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

```On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +0000, devotee@vote.debian.org wrote:
> In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
> option x received over option y.
>                   Option
>               1     2     3     4     5     6     7
>             ===   ===   ===   ===   ===   ===   ===
> Option 1           46    60    72    73    89   117
> Option 2    281         160   160   171   177   224
> Option 3    255    61         125   137   151   204
> Option 4    253   121   146         160   166   194
> Option 5    234   105   128   135         136   191
> Option 6    220   118   134   125   134         180
> Option 7    226   129   145   153   160   169

> Dropping Option 1 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 2 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 3 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 4 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 6 because of Majority. [...]

> The Schwartz Set contains:
> 	 Option 5 "Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise"

If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:

Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware

It beats the second choice by 39 votes (160 versus 121), which is:

Second: Option 4: Empower the release team to decide ...

They beat the third choice by 99 votes (160 versus 61) and 11 votes (146 versus 125) respectively, which is:

Third: Option 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations

They in turn beat the fourth choice (which was the winning option,
choice 5) by, respectively, 66 votes (171 versus 105), 25 votes (160
versus 135), and 9 votes (137 versus 128).

Fourth: Option 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
(winner as per listed supermajority requirements and devotee's mail)

Option 5 beat option 6 by only two votes (136 versus 134), while the others
beat option 6 by, respectively, 59 votes (177 v 118), and 41 votes (166 v 125),
17 votes (151 v 134).

Fifth: Option 6: Exclude source requirements for firmware (defined)

Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
by further discussion by 109 votes.

The only differences between the text of options 2 and 5 seems to be that
option 2 says:

Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware

4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of
Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so.

whereas option 5 has an additional subclause:

Option 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise

4. [same text as above, with the addition of:]
and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
complies with the DFSG.

It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.

If there are actual cases where the difference is important (firmware
still included in the kernel or other packages that's explicitly licensed
as non-free, rather than being licensed under the GPL or other free
license, but not including something that looks like source code),
then I guess it's a question of whether the immediate past secretary's
ruling on the supermajority requirements for the vote are going to be
considered binding.

> The voters have spoken, the bastards... --unknown

Cheers,
aj

```

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature