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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
>> several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
> 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":
>>    ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs:  Yes
> Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are
> empowered, by delegation, to decide upon transitions and
> "lenny-ignore" tags. It will be the same tomorrow if "further
> discussion" wins.

        What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
 DFSG violations in main. If you think there is such a powere delegated
 to them, you need to show that these powers are there with the DPL in
 the first place, or that they belong to the RM.

        So, sure, they can ad whatever tags they wish to the BTS. But
 the release Lenny woth stuff the SC says we will not have in the Debian
 system, sorry, no.

> If people disagree with that, they can overrule delegates' decision as
> supported by our constitution.

        Err, it should not come to that, since they would be exceeding
 their authority in the first place (releasing something that the SC
 says Debian shall not).

> BTW, this is yet another hint that separate ballots would have been
> better, because we are implicitly calling for another GR in some
> special case, but unfortunately Dato's proposal to split ballots
> doesn't seem to have gained enough momentum.

        We can have a spearate vote on what to do post lenny, if people
 still want that. But currently, with the issue on how to go about
 releasing lenny, all these proposals are related.

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." Poloniouius, in Willie
the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_
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: