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

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
>> the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision.  That
>> decision was not overridden.  Hence, the release continues.  All else
>> is irrelevant.

>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass.  Neither of those things
>> have happened.  Until they do, this is all pointless noise.

> As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
> reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.

I disagree completely.

The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
DFSG and SC in their own work.  That's what the constitution currently
says.  4 would have granted more sweeping powers if it had passed, but
that doesn't change the current situation or the fact that the release
team has the power to make this decision unless a developer override

Several of us pointed this out during the vote.

As stated previously, I understand that you disagree with this
interpretation of the constitution, but neither of us are going to change
each other's mind and the people who are in a position to do something
about it don't appear to agree with your interpretation.  Attempting to
read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into
this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable,
given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional
interpretation at all.  (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement
would be non-binding anyway, although had one passed even with a simple
majority I expect most developers would give it a great deal of weight.)

I am not claiming that the vote supports my position either.  It doesn't
provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend
time worrying about the licensing of firmware.  The winning option in the
vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing
issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before
the GR began.  This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; it
combined multiple issues and the available options didn't each cover all
the issues being voted on.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: