Hi Dne Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:47 +1100 Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> napsal(a): > Margarita Manterola wrote: > > 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. > > > > I think the concern is, what if the results conflict? > > e.g. if we get a "No" for (C) but Yes for (A). We trust the release team > to make the right choices but we don't trust them to make the right > choices for Lenny? > > My suggestion would be to vote for (C) first, and then decide the > wording on (A) and (B) depending on the outcome of (C). In which case, > even if there is a conflict, the wording can clarify if the second vote > overrides or doesn't override the first result. This makes sense. I really do not like way current vote mixes different things. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature