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

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

>> ,----[ Option 8 ]
>> |    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>> |       community (Social Contract #4);
>> | 
>> |    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>> |       non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
>> |       made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
>> |       version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>> |       release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
>> |       operating system is complete.
>> `----
> I find this one to be deceitful.  First, because it's technically
> equivalent to "further discussion".  Second, because the release team
> has already expressed their intent to infringe the Social Contract,
> which in principle is supposed to have more weight (backed by 3:1
> majority) than a GR approved by simple majority (like this option
> would require).  I see it as feasible that they would infringe this
> text as well.

        I think this is different from frther discussion in that it is
 an recent and unequivocal expression of developer intent, expressly
 delaying Lenny until we get out act together. I do not  believe the
 RM's will ignore a GR.

> Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.

        If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on
 the ballot.

The more control, the more that requires control.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: