Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> writes:
> > But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> > - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> > - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
> > It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
> > seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.
> Well, this is the reason why, in my proposal, I require that the GR
> explicitly say one way or the other whether it's overriding a FD if it's
> at all ambiguous. I don't believe either of those proposals should be
> allowed to go to vote until they explicitly say either that they're
> temporarily overriding a FD or that they believe that the release is
> consistent with the FD as written and are therefore a non-binding position
> statement on how the project interprets the FD.
> Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not very worried about the case of
> a non-binding position statement saying that it doesn't override an FD but
> saying something completely contradictory to it. First, I don't think
> such a GR would pass, and second, even if it does, it's non-binding, so
> DDs who completely disagree with it aren't bound to follow it.
If you have an option saying "Allow Lenny to release with
firmware blobs. This does not override the DFSG", I can only
see that make sense if it really means: "firmware blobs are not a
DFSG violation", and the "Lenny" part doesn't make sense.
The same goes for "Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG
violations. This does not override the SC." That would be the
same as "Allow releases with known DFSG violations".