Hello DPL, I'd like to point you to the following mail by Raphaël on -vote. It is also available at [1]. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/12/msg00038.html Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> (11/12/2008): > Manoj, I still object to voting all at once and I'm convinced that you > will manage to hurt the project by doing that. Ditto. > Honestly, at this point, I would really wish that you retired as > secretary because there have been too many conflicts between you and > various DD while your secretarial work shouldn't be the source of any > conflict. You just have to count the points on each side but you > don't. You insist on deciding alone if something is a change to the > DFSG (when the text doesn't modify it explicitely) while I believe > that only the project at large is able to decide of something like > that. That's why I'd like to put you (leader@) in the loop. You'll find Raphaël's comments below. Could you please comment on the secretary's behaviour? Is he only doing his job, and the right way? Or is there something going very wrong? Thanks for your time. Mraw, KiBi. > That said, here are my comments anyway: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > 41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242 > > [ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract > > "Delay Lenny until all DFSG violations known at 1. Nov 2008 are fixed" > > At least be clear what the choice means. Otherwise it looks like you are > hiding the meaning and trying to get you personal preference (yes you > explained several times that you would probably vote for such an option). > > > [ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1] > > We're not changing the DFSG. So there's no need for 3:1. > > > [ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations [3:1] > > I followed the discussions but I don't even know why we have this > alternative which looks like the same than 2. > > > [ ] Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1] > > The full text doesn't use the word DFSG violation. > Maybe: > "Let the release team decide if each known freeness problems should be blockers" > > > [ ] Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise > > The proposition doesn't speak of the GPL in any special way. Neither does > it explain what is required to prove that source code exist for the blob. > So this subject is not appropriate either. > > In fact, I would think it doesn't solve at all the problem of GPL > firmwares. > > > [ ] Choice 6: Exclude source requirements for firmware (defined) [3:1] > > Peter explicitely told that he doesn't want to modify the DFSG. > > Cheers, > -- > Raphaël Hertzog
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature