Re: Let's vote ... (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still
> > maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on
> > this issue sooner rather than later.
> > This GR, which was seen by Steve as orthogonal to his GR,
>
> Steve's resolution was proposed two weeks ago, this one was proposed one
> week ago. The minimum discussion period is two weeks, though I suppose
> I could vary that down to one week if it's really that urgent.
Yes, but i discussed this with Manoj the yesterday, where he said that :
1) If Steve was to retire his proposal, all the amendments will have to be
reproposed as standalone GRs, which will reset the discussion period.
2) He didn't see the proposals as separate, as i am proposing here.
I have no problem in waiting another week, but the idea of this call for vote,
is not to vote immediately, but to use this week to get an approval of the
other GR proposers that the delay etch or release as is, is indeed orthogonal
to their proposals, and could be voted standalone, and give a chance to third
party who didn't realize the orthogonality to comment and/or propose
amendments and so on.
> I believe Goswin and Wouter are currently working on a solution to
Indeed, they are working on how to solve this at the d-i side, i am in the
discussion with them about it, altough its funny to do so since joeyh still
has me on ignore, but Wouter is the one doing the actual work.
This will only solve the issue in d-i, if it works and is tested, but would
leave the kernel side of issues open, which may take time, and so on, and
doesn't solve the problem of non-distributability of some ofthe firmware due
to sloppy licencing.
> have the firmware issue resolved by technical means; at the moment,
> I think it seems pretty reasonable to let them have a week to work on
> that before going to a vote.
Notice that the proposed GR is actually orthogonal to solving the issue
technically, or not. As it is worded, we aknowledge that a lot of work is
happening, but recognize that it may or not be finished for etch, and decide
to release etch independently of fully solving this issue.
Manoj was of the opinion that the RMs have the power to decide this all by
themselves, but it was my understanding that they where searching the
legitimacy of a GR vote in order to do so.
But again, it is not because we vote this one, that we will suddenly stop
working on solving the issue, and if we solve it all or at least a part, so
much the better.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: