Re: Bundled votes and the secretary
On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:42:20PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> However, I think retitling 5 to: "Assume firmware blobs are in source
>> form unless proven otherwise" is worthwhile as is retitling 1 to: "Delay
>> Lenny release until all DFSG issues are resolved".
>> I wouldn't say this is the secretary trying to skew anything, I just
>> think that it makes the meaning of the choices slightly clearer. If
>> people read the text below then it is clear.
> As written in
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/12/msg00003.html>, this is not the
> case at all. It's possible that the secretary didn't notice this mail
> because I didn't cc: him; but if he saw this mail and chose not to
> acknowledge the arguments, then he is behaving in a wholly improper manner
> with regard to this vote, and frankly I see no reason that we as a project
> should even honor the outcome of a vote on this ballot as presented.
I did read that mail. I was underwhelmed by the force of the
arguments in that email. If you have definitive proof that the firmware
are not the preferred form of modification, please present that
eveidence, boit to us, and to upstream kernel folks.
The proposal also states that
a) we should be legally allowed to distribute the firmware (we can only
do so if it is covered by a licesne)
b) The license be dfsg free.
If you know of any irmware that we are sure does not meet the
criteria (as opposed to we strongly suspect might not), then proposal 5
does not allow lenny to be released with that.
By the way, stating someting in an email does not immediately
make a person holding an official role act that way. So not being
swayed by your arguments is not, in my eyes, acting in an improper
Pournelle must die!
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C