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

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> > Or do you just want him to restate his opinion that the new social
> > contract forbids some interpretations which were ok under the old version?

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:11:47PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> If would be nice if he would reveal whether one of the proposed
> resolutions would *not* result in a situation where he would be
> comfortable with releasing sarge with non-free firmware blobs in
> main.

The major difference between most of them as to do with expiration of
that this "not result in a situation" condition.  But is that what people
are asking about?

> As far as a straightforward reading goes, each of the current
> proposals (except "further discussion") appears to address the trouble
> that the RM has described, therefore allowing a quick release of
> sare. However, that is *my* kind of straightforward, which others may
> or may not share. And the RM's reluctance to confirm that he shares
> such an interpretation seems to strongly suggest that he doesn't. Is
> it too much to ask that he explains how his understanding differs from
> (say) mine, rather than expecting people to telepathically discover
> which option it is that would not change his view of the situation?

Is "a quick release of sarge" the only issue?  Do we care about
maintenance of sarge?  Do we care about release management in the context
of future GRs which modify foundation documents?  Is "quick release"
more or less important than "simple philosophically"?  When does this
change, and why?

It almost sounds like you're expecting AJ to intuit the frame of reference
you're asking the questions from.  Moreso, since expressing those frames
of reference would answer many of the "reasonable sorts of questions"
which are being asked.

I think he's saying "I'll do what you guys tell me" and he's being asked
"what will you do?".  There's a fundamental disconnect here, but since
he's given a lot of specifics and the people asking have not, I don't
think the disconnect is on his side of the fence.

In other words, I think the questions being posed are, at best, too vague.


Reply to: