Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
> > opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
> I'm not sure I agree with your sense of distinction here. I think what
> I'm saying is a fair rationalization of picking any of 2-5 over 1.
How is option 1 related to this?
> at some point I think we cross the line from drawing meaningful
> inferences from a limited data set to fiddling with divining rods...
Who's drawing inferences here? I'm just reading the results:
- Option 5 is the winner.
- Option 2 is what the (simple) majority of developers wanted.
The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this.
> Options 2 and 5 share the attribute that neither explicitly
> asserts that the firmware issue is a DFSG violation, while 3 and 4 both
> seem to.
How is that relevant at all? We just made an exception for firmware. Why
do you bring this into the discussion?
> Perhaps our community is willing to admit there's a problem,
> but isn't convinced or doesn't want to admit that the problem is a clear
> contradiction of the social contract.
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. The
way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware. They don't
say we empower the Release Team to make exceptions as they see fit.
Up to this point, I was assuming that your reinterpretation of the results
was an unintended mistake. TBH, now I think you're being coy. When called
into question, you respond talking about unrelated things like option 1, and
about firmware, and with speculation on what the developers might really
want instead of what they voted.
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind?
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."