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

Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot



On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > Moin,
> > > 
> > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
> > > > 60 days or more
> > > 
> > > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who determines 
> > > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be 
> > > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days 
> > > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.)
> > > 
> > > But probably thats a minor point too.
> > 
> > Fine with me.  What does everyone else think?
> > 
> > In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less concerned
> > if the time was increased?
> 
> Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180.  If someone feels strongly enough
> that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of
> course.

Now that I think, this means the options that only included my proposed
reform would not have the effect of preventing Lenny from releasing with
non-free code.

Since sorting that out would require even more complexity in the ballot, I
will propose a GR that only deals with what we do about Lenny, and re-send
my reform proposal later on.  This also makes it easier for others to select
what they want to second.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


Reply to: