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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now
>>   when it didn't for etch?  It's the same secretary in both cases.  What
>>   changed?  I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very
>>   satisfying.

> The option which is worded mostly identical to the one for etch is #5.

Oh, right, but has a title that says something entirely different than the
body of the proposition.  You're right, ignoring the title, this does say
basically the seame thing.  I should have investigated further.  I
withdraw this complaint.

>> * Bundling the vote against the open opposition of a fairly significant
>>   number of people, including some of the people whose amendments were
>>   grouped together, is within his power but comes across poorly.  There
>>   wasn't much attempt to compromise or discuss this, and I came away from
>>   that with a bad taste in my mouth.
> Having multiple votes on this doesn't seem like a good idea.

Well, I strongly disagree, as do a whole bunch of other people, and I
don't think rehashing that is useful.

But more fundamentally it doesn't matter.  Combining things that were
proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the
Secretary, as there's nothing in "Standard Resolution Procedures" which
allows this to be done.

>>   Option 1 is either meaningless or an override of a delegate decision,
>>   but the ballot doesn't reflect this.
> It is a statement that a delegate decision is unconstitutional.

No, it's not.  It says nothing at all about a delegate decision violating
either the constitution or the DFSG.  The wording of choice one is a
delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and is not in
the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even mention there
*was* a delegate decision.

> You're saying that FD means the release team will simply continue to
> ignore the DFSG?

I'm saying that FD means that we'll continue with the release according to
the release team's plans.  I posted this previously along with the
constitutional analysis that supports it.  It's fairly clear from the
decision-making process spelled out in section 2, section 3, and section

If you want to override a delegate decision, you have to actually override
it.  FD does not do that, and the constitution does not provide to anyone
the ability to rule a developer decision as invalid except by following
the normal decision override process.

Whether the current plan is "ignoring the DFSG" is not something that FD
decides one way or the other, so voting FD doesn't mean agreeing with that
statement.  (For example, I personally don't think the release team is
ignoring the DFSG now, and I find your charged language offensive and

> (Note that the constitution doesn't allow them to.)

Please show me exactly where it says that.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: