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

Re: Discussion: granting discretion to release team (was: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny)

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:29:35PM +0000, Frans Pop wrote:
> We've already had two releases where this was an issue and in both cases 
> it was decided by a GR. Why should the current release team think they 
> could handle it differently?

Maybe because in http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 then later in
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 there was a large majority of
people thinking that the firmwares issues should not postpone a release.
Maybe also because AFAICT, all but one firmware issue that were known
when etch was released have been addressed.

I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the subject
prior to every release.

But I really think the project stated strongly and twice that firmwares
issues shouldn't postpone a release, hence I think that the RT wasn't
abusing its powers while tagging those bugs lenny-ignore, because it was
following pre-established consensus.

Note that AFAICT I've seen no release team member (myself included)
being against the vote. The vote will tell if we took a decision that
the project won't endorse, and if it's the case, it will be rescinded.
I have absolutely no strong feelings on the subject, unlike you

Unless I'm mistaken, we haven't released Lenny without asking anyone, or
sent any rash mail to d-d-a saying we would accept any firmwares without
discussion from now on.  We've marked bugs lenny-ignore, and you can
watch progress on that front on [0].

> > | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
> > | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
> > | case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary
> > | authorize these decisions.
> I am extremely hesitant when it comes to this option. In fact, I think 
> it's going to end up below "Further discussion" on my ballot.

FWIW, I believe that any delegate that sees one of his decision loose
with a decent margin should just resign. I dont think this § from Andi's
proposal has any real implication. If the project votes one way or the
other than firmwares should not postpone the release, then it will
underline that we made the right choice in the first place, and I will
feel we did represent the project consensus as delegates.

Constitution is clear about this (§8.3): a Delegate must make choices
that follow the consensus. I genuinely believe we did, two prior votes
are here to support that. If the project rescind our choices with a
clear majority, so be it. It will mean that we (and in particular I)
don't represent Debian well after all. As a consequence I will resign
from my RT membership if that should happen.

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lenny-ignore
    my point with this URL, is that lenny-ignore tags are highly
    visible and traceable. It's not an intent of the release team to rub
    things under the carpet.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgppHBdW7tjuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: