Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>> ,----[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ]
>
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `----
>
> Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian
> is more than the releases although you seem to think it's not? So in no
> way is a decision about the release without talking about the archive in
> all its components going to override the SC.
>> ,----[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ]
>
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `----
>
> Same here.
>
>> ,----[ Proposal 4 ]
>
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
>> `----
I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you
objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement?
The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give
the authority; it just concentrates on what the project is allowing
itself to do.
In a way, the contents of parts of the archive (Sid and
testing), are works in progress. When we release, collectively, we are
releasing a finished version of the Debian system. No one person or
group is responsible for the Debian system, in my view, we are all
involved in it. And we are all collectively responsible for ensuring
that the Debian system is 100% free. Even if there are missteps during
the preparation phase, the finished product, whch would be the current
incarnation of the Debian system, must meet the social contract. The
language of the social contract leaves little wiggle room.
manoj
--
You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks.
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: