Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
>> discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
>> ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
>> have _all_ the possible courses of action for that decision.
>
> If the current vote is going to be interpreted that way then any option
> that _modifies_ foundation documents is not relevant and does not add to
> the GR. The same goes for options that _structurally_ allow the RT to
> allow violations.
>
> Those are clearly long-term decisions, which apparently you feel should be
> decided separately.
No, I don't really feel quite that way. Yes, some of the options
on this ballot have long term impact, but they are also equally capable
of solving our "What to do about Lenny" problems. Since they all solve
the Lenny issue, they are relevant, and related, solutions for the
issue.
I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
hand. No one else should be removing them from consideration as a
solution to the Lenny issue.
manoj
--
Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers. Larry Wall in
<199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: