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

Re: Call for votes (Was: kernel firmwares: GR proposal)

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:02:11PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > As seconder of the below proposal, which has reached enough seconds since
> > august 31, and as there where no ammendments against this proposal, i now
> > officially call for a vote, as per section A.2 of our constitution.
> > =======================================================================
> > 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.
> > =======================================================================
> > As per section A.2.3, i should also propose a ballot, and i believe that the
> > ballot should be of the form :
> >   [ ] Include non-free kernel firmware in etch (this proposal).
> >   [ ] Further discussion.
> As I mentioned previously, I don't think point 3. here is the compromise I
> would like to see.  "Without further conditions" is so broad that it seems
> to even *require* us to include firmware in main that lacks any sort of
> proper distribution license.  And indeed, the upload of a completely
> unpruned 2.6.18 package to unstable suggests that this is not an accident of
> wording, but the actual view of the present kernel team.

I agree that this is not so clear as it would be. But why didn't you say such
during the drafting ? I reread all the mails from you during that prtivate
thread, and you did mention nothing of the sort, unless i missed some.

Furthermore, there will be a irc meeting on saturday, and probably a new
proposal after that, so let's delay until it, and propose a modified wording

> If this option appears on a ballot alone, I am likely to vote "further
> discussion" on it and encourage others to do so as well.  I don't want this
> GR to be a *mandate* that the release team allow firmware under clearly
> non-free licenses into main for etch.

But that is what will happen, do you like it or not. Also, it is just play
with words, and such, remember that what really count is the work actually
done by each of the DDs or associated, and what actually happens.


Sven Luther

Reply to: