Re: Proposal: Apologize for releasing etch with sourceless/non-free firmware
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the last time we
>> postpone the fixing of the issue and that no further GR should
>> change that.
> Why? That can't possibly be binding?
What makes you think that? The developers, by a GR, can
preemptively take the release decision that etch + 1 would not be
released with non-free software in the kernel, and that non-dfsg bits
in main, which violate the SC, would, for once, actually be really
considered RC.
Why does this not fall under takeing decisions that the
delegates are empowered to take bit?
manoj
--
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always
valuable. Thomas Jefferson
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: