Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >
> > I believe that one of the arguments used is that by doing so, the RT
> > would be overriding a foundation document, and developers cannot do so
> > without $higher_power.
>
> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document
> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract,
> but chooses a certain interpretation (that I think is the correct one
> btw). Other people obviously prefer a different interpretation, and so
> the relevant question is: Whose interpretation is the binding one?
> Currently, it seems to me that unless decided otherwise by a GR, the
> release team has the final say (as explained by Russ).
When you say "chooses a certain interpretation", are you referring to the
one in which SC #4 is interpreted in a way that cannot be complied with no
matter what, only to use this impossibility as proof that SC #4 and SC #1
contradict each other, and in turn resolving that because the SC is
inconsistent, SC #1 is meant to be read "figuratively"?
I think we discussed this before [1]. In any case, if you think the SC is
so badly broken, you should be ammending the text to disambiguigate it, like
we did in GR 2004 / 003, or even in GR 2003 / 003.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00039.html
--
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: