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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:

> gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> writes:
>> In order to make it easier for me and maybe others I'm trying to compact
>> them into a single table below (the FD column is from Russ' followup
>> mail to -vote).
>> v Consequence / Proposal >                     | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | FD
>> -----------------------------------------------|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
>>   i require source for firmware in main        | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | Y
>>  ii allow Rel.Team to ignore SC violation bugs | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N
>> iii What do we do for Lenny                    | W | R | R | R | R | R | W
>>  iv modify foundation documents                | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | N
>>   v override foundation documents              | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N
>> -----------------------------------------------|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
>>                                                 Y(es) N(o) R(elease) W(ait)
> I'm pretty sure from the further analysis, and I think Manoj
> confirmed,

        I did not.

> that FD is N-N-R-N-N.

        I think it is Y-N-?-N-N. (personally, I think my interpretation
 of the SC is ? == W, but I can't say that as secretary). The ? is to be
 resolved depending on whether the firmware blobs violate the DFSG or
 not (are they the preferred form of modification?).

        The constitution does not give release teams the powers to
 override the foundation documents,  so the release team can not ignore
 SC violations.

        I can make a formal interpretation of the constitution, if you

> Even if some people think that set of choices is nonsensical, my
> understanding of the current situation is that the release team has
> ruled, as DPL delegates, that the current situation does not violate
> the SC sufficiently to warrant removing the relevant packages from

        I do not think that the constitution allows for
 "sufficiently". You can't supersede a foundation document "in a minor
 way" without a super majority vote.

> main or delaying the release (this is not the same thing as ignoring
> SC violation bugs under the project governance process).  In the
> absence of an override of that delegate decision, it stands.

        I do not think that statement is in compliance with the

        The release team is free to interpret the SC and decide there is
 no violation there (as long as they have a rationale, defensible
 position, etc). That would not violate the constitution.

        They can't just decide, yeah, it violates the SC, but not very
 much, so let us go ahead.

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
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: