Re: Let's vote ... (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:56:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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. [...]
> > 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.
>
> Ah, I see what you're getting at. If the release team thinks going ahead with
> this is the right approach, I'm happy to go along with that, including deferring
> my GR stuff.
>
> AFAICS none of the release team have seconded that proposal though? I don't
> think I've seen Manoj's thoughts on whether that proposal will require a 3:1
> supermajority or has any other flaws either.
Andreas Barth was part of the first circle of people consulted on it and as
such i guess co-autored it. I think Steve disagrees on rushing this, but
didn't seem to be opposed to it, not sure.
Manoj commented on irc that it did not need a 3:1 majority, as it didn't
modify the Social Contract or DFSG. I guess it would be good for it to obtain
a very large majority though, which it probably will.
> > 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.
>
> Manoj? RMs?
Yes, it would be good for you to comment on this directly.
> > 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.
>
> Hear, hear.
The qlogic firmwares where accepted into non-free yesterday, and Wouter is
doing good work, but i doubt we will have everything settled for etch.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: