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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>>This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
>>>you.  I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
>>>requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
>>>of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer
>>>override to enforce that sense of the meaning.
>>>Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
>>>should require 1:1.  3:1 should only be required when the documents are
>>>explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement
>>>about their interpretation.
>> And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite
>> clear here.
>         Frankly, if you want a non-binding position statement you should
>  make that explicit; the developers resove via a general resolution
>  actions that go against a foundation document need the supermajority,
>  in my opinion.

AIUI, the issue here is not wether you need supermajority to act against a
foundation document, but rather wether said actions are contrary to that
document. In other words, the issue is that it's not clear that releasing with
DFSG violations is a violation of the constitution by the release team. Some
people argue that they are infringing the constitution by explicitly allowing
said DFSG violations into lenny. Others argue that Debian is main, not "stable
main", so the DFSG should not be applied more strictly for stable than
testing/unstable, and thus allowing certain DFSG violations into the next
stable is not a infringement of the constitution by the release team.

I don't see anywhere that stable should be considered differently DFSG-wise to
testing/unstable or even experimental.


  Felipe Sateler

Reply to: