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