Re: Proposal: Apologize for releasing etch with sourceless/non-free firmware
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:34:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.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?
Because it was specified that *no other GR* would change this. You can't
legislate that, it's entirely up to the developers at the time to decide
whether or not they pass another GR --- and a later GR would certainly
supersede the earlier one.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.