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

Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes

(Adding -project and including full quote of dato's reply (excluding 
signature) as that was not sent to that list.)

> * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:
> > How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote
> > is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware
> > support in Debian.
> That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the
> mail you replied to, section "On ranking FD first in the official
> vote".

Because any votes below FD do not count toward quorum/majority. Of course 
you can do all kinds of unofficial analysis on the outcome of the vote 
to "correct" for that, but that does not actually change the official 
outcome of the vote.

> > I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now?
> You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go
> for a walk. 

Voting 11 does not reflect my position, I am raising my concerns and I 
feel this is too important to just take a walk.

> Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but it's
> impossible to please everybody. 

The reason why we have the option to propose amendments for official votes 
is exactly to make sure that "everybody gets pleased", or at least that 
all opinions that have sufficient support within the project are 
reflected on the balot. That is why your poll is an even greater farce 
then the official vote.

> > Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide
> > whether or not to release with firmware that is, according to current
> > interpretations of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should
> > be made by the project as a whole because that is only thing that is
> > consistent with the way the question has been handled for Sarge and
> > Etch, especially given the fact that the resolutions passed then
> > explicitly limit the exception to a single release.
> This is a perfectly valid opinion, which I understand and respect. You
> can read this message of mine from 2008-10-30:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html
> I acknowledged (thought admittedly very tersely) that such position is
> valid, and should get discussion, and later a GR.
> If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use
> <suite>-ignore tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it:
> propose a GR, and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the
> "Unofficial GR" mail, too).

No sorry, that is unacceptable. Your poll makes the same mistake the 
official vote does: it mixes separate issues into a single vote. And it 
is worse because it does not even allow to express preferences among 
those issues.

The poll would have been a lot more acceptable if the second option had 
been worded simply to "accept the same exception regarding DFSG 
violations for firmware that was made for Sarge and Etch". By adding in 
the issue of "use of tags by the RT" you _are_ effectively adding in a 
sanction of how the RT has handled this whole issue.

However, I also feel that the raw fact that a poll is called on the same 
subject as an official vote and at the same time, and especially when it 
is done by a member of a team that has a major stake in the outcome of 
the vote/poll shows a regrettable lack of respect for proper democratic 
procedure, so because of that I would still object. And I have just 
decided that I will send a formal objection to the DPL about this poll.

> My opinion is that the release team should have the right to that use
> of <suite>-ignore tags, and then get overriden by a GR on a
> case-by-case basis, when people feel the tags have  ben misused. But if
> developers show they don't want for it to work that way, then it is for
> us to accept that and move on, period.

That is a valid opinion, but IMO it is also completely unworkable. Would 
you really want (the possibility of) a GR for every single case where 
someone feels a tag is not used correctly?

> > I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning
> > the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at
> > least _does_ allow me to express my opinion.
> Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by "sanctioning the RT". If you
> mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says
> "RT should have the right for <suite>-ignore tags always, no matter
> what", that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that.

See above. I really don't see how else the text for option 2 can be 
interpreted. It may not be the main purpose of the text, but IMO it is 
definitely implied.

> If you don't mean that, then I'm unsure what you mean and would like
> you to ellaborate. If you dislike the wording of the proposal, and
> would have liked something that didn't mention the RT at all, well...
> see above, I'm not perfect and you can't please anybody. (I circulated
> the draft in some of the channels I'm in, and nobody raised that
> concern.)

Irrelevant and insufficient.

> > IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been
> > contaminated with the options re. the release team powers and re.
> > source requirement for firmware. Those issues should IMO have been
> > handled as separate GRs _after_ the question what to do for Lenny had
> > been settled.
> Fully agreed. (Though up to the first comma, I agree because there was
> an effort by a number of developers who wanted this vote to happen, not
> becaue it was needed "no matter what", see above. But that way of
> thinking can of course change via a "release team powers" GR, to use
> your own words.)

Which will probably be after the release team has released Lenny, ignoring 
the outcome of an official vote and feeling justified in doing the 
release based on a biased poll? Please tell me that's not true...

But I'm afraid it very much looks like that's exactly what the intention 
is. Take the following sentence from your mail:
"[...] it may also give us a good approximation about what the developers
think with respect to releasing Lenny."

This mentions "us" versus "developers". So "us" cannot be "the Debian 
project". Only conclusion can be that "us" is the release team, 
especially given that one of its members is running the poll.

> > Thanks for increasing the mess we already have. I will personally
> > ignore this additional "vote" which suffers from the same problem as
> > the "official" one, namely that it is unacceptably colored by the
> > person who is managing it.
> Peace to you too.

I hereby request you to abandon this poll and to route any "votes" 
to /dev/null. As mentioned in my original mail and argued there and above 
I really do think this makes an even bigger travesty of Debian's 
democratic process then the official vote.
Abandoning the poll would of course nullify my objection to the DPL.

I also call on all Debian Developers to *not* vote in this poll.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: