Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Sat, Nov 15 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 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?
I thought it was clear that the constitution spelled out that
amending a foundation document requires the majority. If you want to
supersede a (part of a) foundation document, the majority comes into
play. §4.1.5, etc.
> 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?
We should not. Ideally, having agreed to the social contract and
the DFSG, Debian developers should be working hard to remove non-DFSG
compliant stuff out of main.
However, we are human, and there can be bugs in our packages
during the work-in-progress stage. Most reasonable people can agree
that it takes time to fix bugs, so Sid has bugs, and some of these are
DFSG violation bugs. However, our release of the Debian system is what
we produce, and we have promised that the Debian system shall be 100%
I do think upholding the SC should be a goal for all DD's at any
time, but YMMV.
Oh Dad! We're ALL Devo!
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C