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

Re: GR proposal : Freeze of the GR process until the etch release, hoping tempers will have calmed down by then.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 04:36:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:02:40PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > =========== START OF GR PROPOSAL =============
> > Given that the current set of issues held up to 
> > vote, as well as the dispute over them and over
> > whether the secretary can excercice common sense
> > and judgement when casting the ballot, the debian
> > project thus resolves that :
> > 
> >   In order to not distract our developpers from
> >   their technical work and the timely release of 
> >   etch, the GR voting procedure, both currently
> >   ongoing and future, will be frozen until the 
> >   release of etch, hoping that tempers will have 
> >   calmed until then.
> > 
> >   Currently ongoing votes will be delayed until a 
> >   week after the etch release, where the normal
> >   time counting will restart, an no new proposals
> >   will be accepted.
> > ===========  END OF GR PROPOSAL  =============
> I would consider such a statement completely non-binding on me and would
> ignore it in favor of continuing to pursue a resolution to the firmware
> question.

Yes, well, nobody seconded it yet anyway, so ... I was also not really fully
serious when i wrote it, i must admit.

It would bring a stop to this one-GR-per-week-about-firmwares thingy, and
other desagreable stuff going on the list. Also, i think what you fear would
not be an issue, since this proposal post-dates frederik's firmware proposal,
and thus will be voted after it (we should have been voting on it since
september 14 or so already), which would have given us a response to the
firmware question one way or another.

> Moreover, the reason the firmware question was being put to a vote in the
> first place is because I'm not willing to put my name on a release of etch
> that includes sourceless firmware without first getting a statement from the
> project that this is the right thing to do, and *why* this is ok if it
> contradicts the current DFSG.

Well, i think you have only yourself to blame for the current state of things,
you knew the kernel team was working on Frederik's proposal, and i think it
would have been much more consensual to just post Frederik's proposal, which
was studied to be consensual, and something all parties could accept, instead
of hurrying to propose your stuff, with the lamentable result that we know.


Sven Luther

Reply to: