Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
> So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says
> "we will do X" but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it
> would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all?
> What's the point?
Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing
it:
The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is
to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the
project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything.
To make a change that's binding on all developers going forward, you have
to alter a foundation document and get a 3:1 majority.
However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires
only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution,
to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you
override the ftp-master's decision that it's non-free, and then you
override the release team's decision that it's non-free, and so forth.
Those overrides aren't binding on any future developer decisions, only on
those specific ones.
I agree wholeheartedly with Raphael: I don't see this as any real threat.
Even people who think we should ship NVidia drivers in main aren't going
to vote in sufficient numbers for a GR that says they meet the DFSG. (And
if they did, we have other problems that voting rules aren't going to fix,
no matter what rules we're trying to apply.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: