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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR



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

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations [3:1]
> ====== == ===== ===== == ======= ==== ==== ========== =====

Same question somehow applies here.


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise

Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not "DFSG" ?


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.

This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpdbC0cZV7OM.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: