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

Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 06:59:41PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
> > 
> > Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
> > document is the previous option.
> What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
> that is what I mean. We are agreeing to do something which the
> foundation document said we would not, but only for a certain period of
> time (etch).
> I don't _care_ what you call that, I call it a temporary override of a
> foundation document.

I think this is the core of the disagreement. I do not call it a
temporary override of a foundation document; I call it a temporary
practical consensus between "the needs of our users" and "the needs of
the free software community".

This is an option which we took reluctantly; but the only other option
was to delay the release even longer, which was not the best thing to

We didn't say "we're throwing the DFSG out the window". We said "we're
trying, but it will take a shitload of work, and we don't think delaying
the release to get this done is worth it". Is that overriding a
foundation document? Not from where I'm standing.

<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22

Reply to: