Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
On Tue, May 12 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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".
I thought we had agreed to adhere to a document that lays out
how these conflicts between the need of the users and the free software
pledge we made is to be resolved:
| 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works
| that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
| have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
| these works.
As I understand it, we, as a project, have acceoted that there
is tension between the needs of our users, and the dictates of free
software; and the solution we have come up with is called "contrib" and
"non-free" areas in our archive.
Isn't that perfectly clear?
Non-sequiturs make me eat lampshades.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C