Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If there is sufficient support, we could also scrap the current
> vote, change our ballot, add options to it, or something, and restart
> the vote, but that would need a strong grass roots support (I do not
> think the secretary has the power to do so).
As far as I understand from reading the immense threads, most people
(me included) don't want more options in the ballot. We want separate
ballots for separate subjects. This means that 4 and 6 should get
their own ballot. This is not "gaming" the system, it's voting
separate subjects separately.
Also, titles should summarize the included text without bias. i.e. 1:
"Delay the release of lenny until all licensing problems are solved",
5: "Allow sourceless firmware as long as the license complies with
DFSG", and probably 4, too, since the text does not speak about "DFSG
violations" but rather "usage of problematic software".
And finally, if we were to do the vote again, there really is no need
to have the trio of 2, 3 and 5. They are basically the same thing,
you need to be extremely "into" the problem to understand the
differences. Only one option, crafted by those who have real
knowledge of what the actual problems are (and that does not requiere
3:1 majority), would be enough.
If we do all this, we would be voting:
A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of
which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware
issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny.
B) If we want to allow sourceless firmware in Debian, defining
firmware in a way that doesn't give a waiver to anything else without
source. This is also from now on, not just for Lenny. But it's only
for firmware, not for everything with licensing problems.
C) If we want to allow stuff with some problems into Lenny, as we
already did for Sarge and Etch.
These three issues are obviously related, but are NOT the same issue,
a positive result in one does not determine what happens to the
others. And creating one mega ballot with all the different
possibilities, only creates confusion and frustration. So, this
should be three independent ballots.
This is, basically the same that dato proposed:
And I think (I haven't counted, but I've followed the threads, the
chats and the blogs) that most developers that have participated on
this matter have manifested that they would prefer a group of sensible
ballots to the monster ballot we have now.
I hope that you can take that into consideration.