Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Matthew Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.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
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 (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>