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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> authoritative.
> That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
> >     i Do we require source for firmware in main:                 Yes
> >    ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs:  No
> >   iii What do we do for Lenny:                                   Wait
> >    iV Do we modify foundation documents:                         No
> >     v Do we override foundation documents                        No
> it should rather be "Yes":

Instead of having a long, useless discussion on what "Further discussion"
means, would it be possible to remove that option?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for any interpretation of what "Further
Discussion" would mean in this vote, there's an explicit option in the ballot.

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: