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

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:57:37 +0100
Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 28.12.2008 at 21:08:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
> <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > If you consider the same results, without the supermajority
> > requirements for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
> > 
> >     Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary
> > firmware
> considering all the problems around this particular GR, what's the
> best way to just "undo" this GR and go back to square one instead?

Let it stand and release Lenny? After all, the only option that would
have delayed Lenny further was Option 1 that didn't get close to winning
under any reading of the votes.
> Methinks that this ballot was conducted in quite a wrong way, and that
> this outcome is simply ridiculous. Andi and Anthony have expressed
> this in softer words already, if I read their messages correctly.

True, but the reason for the GR has been comprehensively defeated -
Lenny should not be delayed whilst every byte of every blob is removed
(Option 1). Can't we just follow the result and release Lenny on a
best-effort process?

> The two problems at hand are, from my perspective:
>  1 What do we want to do about the release of Lenny?

Go ahead and do it, IMHO.
>  2 How do we want to treat the lingering problem of having blobs?
>    (Because many people seem to feel that making a release-exception
>    year after year is not the right thing to do. I generally agree
> with this.)

This GR was all about Lenny - there has been no change to the DFSG (due
to the majority determinations made for this GR) so the whole thing
needs to be redone before Squeeze - but I don't see that anything needs
to be done *NOW*, other than to implement the result on a best-effort
basis and get Lenny released.

> Imho, Adeato's suggestion to split the vote was the right thing to do,
> so I'd say roll back this GR, and conduct two independent GRs with
> different questions instead, which I consider a better option than
> going with the current outcome where even Manoj admitted that he has
> conducted the GR the wrong way (I'd like to grab the opportunity to
> express the pain I felt when I saw him stepping down).

Personally, I think the vote should stand, despite the flaws. It only
applies to Lenny - get Lenny out and sort out the underlying problems
for Squeeze.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpmVwnqz_zLG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: