On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:28:19PM +0000, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007#majorityreq > > 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every > > bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless > > firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs > > as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and > > firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as > > long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is > > distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. > > > > > > and from the current vote: > > 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting > > every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of > > sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver > > firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally > > allowed to do so. > > > > Now explain to me how a genuine interpretation of the Constitution let > > the former need simple majority and the latter super majority. > > The biggest difference is the "under a license that complies with > the DFSG" part. There is also the udeb part that's different. > > Note that we also have the an option (choice 5) with the "under a > license that complies with the DFSG" part and that doesn't have the > 3:1 majority requirement. We could have worded it like in '06 and achieve the same then (IOW there is no "gain" in the wording difference that you believe - and I still do not believe it - warrants the 3:1 majority wrt what this option tries to achieve). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpWZk5Hb96qN.pgp
Description: PGP signature