Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +0000, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
>> ====== == ===== ===== == ======= ==== =========== ======== =====
>
> Why on earth does it needs [3:1] whereas it wasn't needed for:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
Asked and answered, it has to do with removing the wording about
requiring the firmware to be under a dfsg free license.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations [3:1]
>> ====== == ===== ===== == ======= ==== ==== ========== =====
>
> Same question somehow applies here.
You do not think asking to release with known violations of a
foundation document needs a 3:1? Again, asked and answered.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1]
>> ====== == ======= === ======= ==== == ====== ===== ======== ==== ========== ====
>
> Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
> by the § about delegates in the constitution. "Delegates shall take
> decision they see fit". What should be [3:1] is to dis-empower them from
> having such rights.
Actuallu, nothing delegated to the delegates allows them to
change the foundation docs. Or should the packager fo the constitution
document, or the web team, under their daily tasks, just change the
constitution as they see fit?
> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
> I would be surprised other people don't think the same.
>
> E.g. How can I decide 2 _and_ 4 ? Does the rule change ? Does any
> resolution that wins overs Further Discussion will be validated ?
> Because unless I'm mistaken, 2 doesn't imply 4, so if 2 wins, 4 is
> invalidated.
No one seems to have seen it desirable to put a 2 & 4 option on
the ballotl; despite the months we took to discuss this. The web page
with the options was also up for several weeks, and a draft ballot went
up earlier.
Seems liek there was plenty of time to change things, and add
some of the power set options on to the ballot. If I had added options
willy-nilly, you would have screamed again of abuse of power.
manoj
--
God gives us relatives; thank goodness we can chose our friends.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: