On Tue May 12 17:06, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > 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". Which is contradictory to one of our foundation documents. > 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. Can you think of anything you would count as that? Something where the project is saying "We are agreeing to definitely do something which the social contract said we would not, but we aren't permanently modifying it". Perhaps we need a vote option which says "these things definitely aren't something we need 3:1 for, regardless of what you think they are" Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature