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
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
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.
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."