Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> writes:
> 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".
I agree. However, I'm very reluctant to say that the Secretary should
prevent the project from voting on proposals that don't make sense,
provided that they're constitutionally clear.
I would vote against both of those proposals as phrased because I think
they're self-contradictory and they're not interpretations that I think we
can make, despite the fact that I was on the side favoring releasing lenny
in the previous GR.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>