On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now > when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What > changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very > satisfying. The option which is worded mostly identical to the one for etch is #5. No 3:1 majority is needed for it. Only options which allow non-free firmware to be released need it. Note that option #5 (crypically, I admit) says we'll believe that the firmware is its own source. > * Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant > number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were > grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly. There > wasn't much attempt to compromise or discuss this, and I came away from > that with a bad taste in my mouth. Having multiple votes on this doesn't seem like a good idea. His reasoning was simple and good (IMO): releasing Lenny has priority ATM. Anything not related to that should be delayed. Options for "how do we release Lenny?" should be on this ballot. All options have an answer for that. Permanently changing foundational documents is something that's better done after the release (or at least after the decision about how to release). I didn't check if he was constitutionally given the power to decide this. However, I do think it is a good decision. > * One role of the secretary is to interpret the constitution. The > constitution states fairly clearly the process of decision-making for > decisions of this type, such as whether a given package violates the > DFSG, or how to weigh the implications of the Social Contract. Yet that > decision-making process is not reflected in the ballot or in the > presentation of the options. > Option 1 is either meaningless or an override of a delegate > decision, but the ballot doesn't reflect this. It is a statement that a delegate decision is unconstitutional. That is something else than an override. In case of an override, the delegate had the power to do what he/she did, but it wasn't a good idea anyway. > Option 4 looks equivalent to FD if you look at the decision-making > process in the constitution, but the ballot doesn't reflect that. I > think some additional clarity around that would have been very helpful. You're saying that FD means the release team will simply continue to ignore the DFSG? (Note that the constitution doesn't allow them to.) I don't actually think they are doing that (so "continue" isn't even appropriate here), but option #4 would give them the right to ignore the DFSG (regardless of whether they've been doing that so far). Not a good idea at all, IMO. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature