This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said: > I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you > objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement? > The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give > the authority; it just concentrates on what the project is allowing > itself to do. > > In a way, the contents of parts of the archive (Sid and > testing), are works in progress. When we release, collectively, we are > releasing a finished version of the Debian system. No one person or > group is responsible for the Debian system, in my view, we are all > involved in it. And we are all collectively responsible for ensuring > that the Debian system is 100% free. Even if there are missteps during > the preparation phase, the finished product, whch would be the current > incarnation of the Debian system, must meet the social contract. The > language of the social contract leaves little wiggle room. I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1 supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software in question served in the first place. It seems to me that what you're saying is that it's fine to have a non-free kernel or glibc side by side with a broken one in the same directory, so long as the non-free one isn't listed in the Packages file that the stable symlink points to. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature