Re: kernel firmwares: GR proposal
Frederik Schueler <email@example.com> writes:
> 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> community (Social Contract #4);
> 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit
> out; for this reason, we will deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, without further conditions.
It seems to me that this GR is unacceptable in this form because it
does not give an adequate definition of firmware, and people seem to
mean many different things by it.
Further, because this amounts to a decision to disregard the SC, it
should require a 3:1 majority.