Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal
Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:44:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Obviously each of those polls only includes a self-selected minority of
>> the people they try to cover, but the results seem fairly consistent both
>> with each other, and what's been discussed so far on this list.
> Ok, this seems indeed obvious, from the discussion that followed, and the
> general consensus, but ...
>> It therefore seems to me as though we're going to be failing to meet the
>> social contract again, and as a consequence I think we should seriously
>> reconsider whether the change we made in 2004 was the right one. So I'd
>> like to propose the following course of action for consideration:
> ... you do a gigantic leap to this conclusion, which is not at all waranted by
> the above poll.
> The idea was that it is too short until the etch release (actually it is way
> too late, since kernel freeze was in early august) to solve the non-free
> firmware issue, and your little poll clearly stated that this was a poll aimed
> at releasing etch on time, not to revert the decision already taken on this
I agree. I have not taken part in the poll, mostly because I thought
that the result was clear from the beginning, and my vote wouldn't
change anything (it would have been exactly in the order that came out
of the developer poll and which I anticipated). However, I always saw
these questions in the context of releasing etch, nothing else.
I do not in any way see this poll as an indication that we should revert
the SC change, or that we have failed (in fact, we have succeeded to a
large extent, just not 100%) or that we are being hypocritical.
I also second the rest of Sven's statement ;-)
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)