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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

This seems to have stalled a bit, so trying to get bark on track here.

There seems to be several sorts of vote here:

1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1)
2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1)
3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
   want to override the FD (?)
6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say
   which of 2-5 it is.

1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like.

3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but
we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release".

4. is things like "we think that firmware can be its own source, so
shipping blobs is fine"

On Mon Mar 16 23:06, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> 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.

This would be 5, and as you say, I don't think it makes much sense.

My point of view would be that 3 requires 3:1, 4 does not and that votes
of type 5 or 6 should not be allowed to run until they are clarified.

Incidentally, I'm not intending to answer the question here of whether
we can release with blobs or dfsg violations, but what the vote about
this should look like.

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: