[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:

> This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said:
>> On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> >
>> >> |  We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
>> >> |  all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
>> >> |  case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary
>> >> |  authorize these decisions.
>> >
>> > Also, this one should not be voted together with the rest, since it's
>> > an orthogonal issue. This not /exclusively/ a solution for the problem
>> > for Lenny.
>> >
>> > We can ask the proposer of this option what he thinks, if you don't
>> > agree it should be split out.
>>         While some of the proposals have longer lasting effects than
>>  just the current release, they are still related: for example, the
>>  proposal singled out above, if passed, would make proposal 5 moot, and
>>  invalidate proposal 1.
> It's not possible to express the full set of relations in a single
> winner vote, as far as I can tell.  It might be someone's vote to say
> 'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever' and simultaneously
> say 'but the release team does have the authority to downgrade these bug
> reports if they need to'.  Unless I've missed something and we're
> planning on having a multi winner vote, 

        That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
  'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
      or you have
  'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free crap'

        Not both.

        Which is why they are on the same ballot.

        Frankly, at this point, we are trying to get the issue of Lenny
 release with or without firmware resolved. All the options do that, in
 one way or the other. Some options are temporary displensations, other
 are far wider ranging than that. Arguably, we might want the wider
 ranging changes _anyway_, but that might not happen if we can get lenny
 released by an other option.

        In that case, we can re-raise the issue post lenny,
 independently, and not get the vote get all tangled up with trying to
 release lenny.

        If we are trying to change foundation documents not in the
 context of releasing lenny, I think we need a good debate on the merits
 of each proposal, not an accelerated one trying to resolve the lenny
 issue. But all the related proposals will solve the lenny release, so I
 think it is justified to put them on the ballot about "what to do with

Success in management--at any level--depends on the ability to pick the
right people for the right jobs.
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: