Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 09:45 -0600, Debian Project Secretary a
> écrit :
>> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1
>> | majority)
> So you get to decide which options need 3:1 majority?
Well, yes. Constitution section 7.1, point 3.
> I don’t understand why you decide that we need a 3:1 majority to allow
> release managers to release lenny, while we do not require such a fuss
> to allow kernel or glibc developers to knowingly violate the social
> contract at each upload.
> Why should we consider the stable release process differently from our
> other processes?
I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider our releases to be the
primary output of our development process. If nothing else, it's rather
hard to keep from never violating the SC temporarily by simple mistake
during unstable development, and treating the release as the point at
which we have to clear all that up provides a firm boundary for what
"temporary" will be in temporary violations.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>