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

Request for ruling re. use of lenny-ignore tags by release team

Dear Steve and Bdale,

Given that the current status of the current "lenny firmware" vote is that 
it will go forward, I would appreciate if the DPL and/or the Project 
Secretary could rule on the following issue.

In the discussion about the vote various people have argued that a vote 
for "further discussion" would mean that the Release Team (RT) can go 
forward with the release of Etch as it would not change the current 
situation where the RT (as delegates) decided - by setting lenny-ignore 
tags on the relevant bugs - that the firmware issue is not a release 
blocker. Others have argued that the RT is not empowered to make that 
decision and thus that some real resolution regarding the firmware 
question by the project by means of a GR is required before Lenny could 
be released.

My personal opinion is that, given that the project effectively decided 
two times in a row by GR (in votes 2004/004 and 2006/007) to allow an 
exception *for a single release only*, that no single developer, package 
maintenance team, or group of delegates is empowered to make or extend 
such an exception for/to later releases.
IMO the current RT made a judgement error when they decided to assign the 
lenny-ignore tags to the relevant BRs, especially as that was done 
without any kind of consultation of the project at large.

This is coupled with a more general feeling that no single delegate or 
delegated team should decide on issues that are so fundamental to the 
project or that have proven to be so controversial in the past as the 
firmware question [1].
This argument is less strong than the previous one as it has less formal 
basis, but is something that I currently intend to investigate further 
after Lenny has been released (e.g. during DebConf).

I've decided to ask the DPL and project secretary to rule on this issue 
based on the following considerations:
- the Project Secretary is the guardian of the constitution and thus the
  correct role to rule on consequences of previous votes;
- the DPL has delegated the function of release manager, and thus of the
  release team which grew out of it, and is thus the correct role to rule
  on empowerment of that team in general.

A ruling before the end of the voting period would be appreciated.


P.S. Please note that I am actually in favor of Lenny being released 
without the need to resolve open firmware issues, but I also feel it 
should be done for the right reasons.

[1] This is complicated by the fact that I feel the RT _is_ empowered to 
rule about ignoring RC licence-related bugs filed in cases where the 
issue is much more limited in scope, such as in the following example:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: