On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to
> compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source,
> we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the
> purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1
> requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a
> position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing
> to have from our users and our perspective.
Thanks Don. I like the proposal, however I'm not seconding it.
My position is: "sourceless firmware sucks, but at the moment we happen
to need it, just like sourceless BIOSes".
In this view, I see two problems with your GR:
1. It needs a separate vote to affirm "we happen to need it".
2. It would make the exception etch-specific, just like we previously
made a sarge-specific exception, and now we have to vote on the same
issue again.
I understand that the urgent issue is "are we ok in having sourceless
firmware in etch?", and I think it's a waste of time to vote a GR that
doesn't address that.
Then, if an exception is to be defined, I'd it to be defined not in
terms of some future release we can't predict, but in term of "until we
can't possibly do without". Unfortunately, my attempt[1] at wording
this latter point didn't get it right, and I can't come out with
anything better.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00053.html
Ciao,
Enrico
--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature