[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal

Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
> MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> >>     Developer only poll: (83 votes) [2]
> >>         Option 1 Release etch on time
> >>         Option 3 Support hardware that requires sourceless firmware
> >>         Option 2 Do not ship sourceless firmware in main
> >>         Option 4 None of the above
> >
> > ...and nor are these.
> Ah, right, I forgot: neither orthogonal nor contradicting, just mingled
> up.  One more reason why I didn't vote.  Technically, we can still
> manage to meet Options 1 to 3 of the DD-only poll, although it's highly
> unlikely.  [...]

The vote data may still be useful in picking priorities, but it makes
little sense to pick a "winner" in the usual way, or to do anything to
discourage work towards lower priority aims.

That's one reason why I can't agree with the initial proposal (apart from
the big stack of non-answers to my first reply to it): it pretty much
perpetually pooh-poohs several aims, rather than declaring some aims
to be more important than others.  I think that was a mistake with the
sarge-ignore GR and is part of the reason we're back here now.  Can we
get a release out in a timely way without chilling and insulting help?

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: