Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
send a box of chocolates to Ben.
I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time in that it adds
nothing but ineffective micromanaging for situation that is in violation
of the today's social contract while being ignorant of the how its
proposed solution should be implemented (currently packages move between
components by entering NEW on upload and then being accepted or
rejected, the proposal does not specify whose responsibility it is to do
the upload, I know of no attempt to upload linux-2.6 to non-free, so
really with the same set of actions and the new set of rules, the
situation would be 100% identical).
This failure and the lack of effort to actually resolve the situation
within the current framework make Robert's proposal indefensible.
Furthermore, I intend to ask the DPL to revoke my delegation to the ftp
team should Robert's proposal receive enough seconds to be voted on.
Fianally, I would also like to ask the Secretary to clarify that
Robert's Option 1 does affect the Social Contract #1, in particular
We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
when it requires moving to non-free packages from Debian such as the
Linux kernel that are (effectively) required for running Debian.
1. For me, Debian is non-fun at the moment not because of the lack of
great people but because of an excess of people that spoil my Debian
experience. I am not quite ready to quit yet, but every day and every
second on Robert's resolution help.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/