Re: Bundled votes and the secretary
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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
Does the proposal choice 5 not achive exactly what you seem to
want? Itr is worded like 2006, and has a 1:1 majority. I do think the
"under a license that complies with the DFSG" part is significant;
without it one may say that any binary blob under whatever license may
be included in the release; without needing to comply with the
DFSG. The not needing to comply with the DFSG bit is what makes the
super majority come in, and which is why we have a choice 5 on the
We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C