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

Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes

* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]:

> How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is
> to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in
> Debian.

That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the
mail you replied to, section "On ranking FD first in the official vote".

> I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now?

You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go
for a walk. Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but
it's impossible to please everybody.

> Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide whether or
> not to release with firmware that is, according to current interpretations
> of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should be made by the project
> as a whole because that is only thing that is consistent with the way the
> question has been handled for Sarge and Etch, especially given the fact that
> the resolutions passed then explicitly limit the exception to a single
> release.

This is a perfectly valid opinion, which I understand and respect. You
can read this message of mine from 2008-10-30:


I acknowledged (thought admittedly very tersely) that such position is
valid, and should get discussion, and later a GR.

If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use <suite>-ignore
tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it: propose a GR,
and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the "Unofficial GR" mail,

My opinion is that the release team should have the right to that use of
<suite>-ignore tags, and then get overriden by a GR on a case-by-case
basis, when people feel the tags have  ben misused. But if developers
show they don't want for it to work that way, then it is for us to
accept that and move on, period.

> I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT,
> which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_
> allow me to express my opinion.

Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by "sanctioning the RT". If you
mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says
"RT should have the right for <suite>-ignore tags always, no matter what",
that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that.

If you don't mean that, then I'm unsure what you mean and would like you
to ellaborate. If you dislike the wording of the proposal, and would
have liked something that didn't mention the RT at all, well... see
above, I'm not perfect and you can't please anybody. (I circulated the
draft in some of the channels I'm in, and nobody raised that concern.)

> IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been contaminated
> with the options re. the release team powers and re. source requirement for
> firmware. Those issues should IMO have been handled as separate GRs _after_
> the question what to do for Lenny had been settled.

Fully agreed. (Though up to the first comma, I agree because there was
an effort by a number of developers who wanted this vote to happen, not
becaue it was needed "no matter what", see above. But that way of
thinking can of course change via a "release team powers" GR, to use
your own words.)

> Thanks for increasing the mess we already have. I will personally ignore this
> additional "vote" which suffers from the same problem as the "official" one,
> namely that it is unacceptably colored by the person who is managing it.

Peace to you too.

Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore,
if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not
smart enough to debug it.
                -- Brian W. Kernighan

Reply to: