On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:41:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Okay, so here's the alternate proposal. I understand Raul at least > disagrees with paragraph (3) (and obviously the conclusions based on > that), but I'm not sure we have any good way of noting that difference > of opinion -- perhaps we should include the previous draft in the vote? > Courts and parliamentary committees include minority views (and the > arguments for them) in their final reports; something like that might > be worth doing here too. Given that the constitution does specify the use of the standard resolution procedure, I think the right answer here is to have a single ballot with both proposals on it, so that we have an opportunity to rank the options in glorious Condorcet fashion. ;) I certainly think devotee is overkill, though; with seven eligible voters, I'm content to tally the votes by hand. Given that there's been no formal call for votes on either Raul's proposal or on this one, then, I think we should take another day for any further input (additional resolutions, editorial corrections, etc), then put these on a ballot and call for votes. > Either way, I propose the following, call for a vote on it, and vote > in favour: If you agree with the above, I think we should suspend voting on this proposal alone in the interest of clarity. Also, FWIW I believe this should be s/compatability/compatibility/g on the draft. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/ > WHEREAS > 1. The committee has been asked by Robert Millan, the submitter of > Bug#353278 and a former developer, to overrule the decision by the > maintainer of the ndiswrapper package, Andres Salomon, to include > that package in the main component of the archive, and for it to be > moved to the contrib component; and > 2. The committee is empowered under section 6.1(4) of the constitution to > overrule a maintainer by a 3:1 majority vote, and empowered under section > 6.1(1) to decide on any matter of technical policy; and > 3. The purpose of the ndiswrapper package is to provide an ABI layer > on top of the Linux kernel that is compatible with the interface for > Windows NDIS drivers, and that in order to provide this compatability > layer, no non-free software is required; and > 4. The primary use for this compatability layer is to run non-free > Windows drivers for hardware not directly supported by Linux, though > a very limited number of free drivers using the NDIS format also > exist; and > 5. The technical policy in this matter states that: (debian-policy > 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.1) > > [...] packages in _main_ > * must not require a package outside of _main_ for compilation or > execution > > and: (debian-policy 3.6.2.2, section 2.2.2) > > Examples of packages which would be included in _contrib_ are: > * free packages which require _contrib_, _non-free_ packages or > packages which are not in our archive at all for compilation or > execution, and > * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free > programs. > > THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT > > 6. It is appropriate for the committee to consider this request; and > > 7. The current ndiswrapper package does not require any non-free > software at either compilation time or installation time to fulfill > its designated purpose; and > > 8. As such the ndiswrapper package complies with current technical > policy as regards to its suitability for main; and > > 9. If the ndiswrapper package come to depend on non-free software at > compilation time or installation time, such as by prompting the user > for a Windows driver CD, at that time the ndiswrapper package would > be required to be moved to contrib. > > IN ADDITION > > 10. The committee endorses the decisions of the maintainer of ndiswrapper > and the ftpmaster team in including the package in the main component > as being in compliance with Debian technical policy; and > > 11. The committee endorses the existing policy on the suitability of packages > for the main and contrib components; and > > 12. The committee offers its thanks to Robert Millan for raising the > issue; to Wouter Verhelst and others for their input on the topic; > and to Andres Salomon for his ongoing efforts in maintaining the > ndiswrapper packages.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature