Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Further, because this amounts to a decision to disregard the SC, it
> should require a 3:1 majority.
It's not disregarding the SC, it's clarifying the fact that we need more
time to create the proper infrastructure that will allow us to support the
hardware *and* to respect our principles.
So I don't think it's a 3:1 issue. We're not changing our goals, only
clarifying the timeline and acknowledging that the etch timeframe is too
short for us to reach this goal.
Being a volunteer project, we can't guarantee that this problem won't
arise again with etch+1, but I hope that all people who have expressed
concerns here, will help the kernel/d-i team and make it a reality for
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :