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

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement



Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
or the constitution.

Indeed and there is the case of temporary exceptions. Does saying "we
will release with non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation
document? I would say yes. Does saying "we will release Lenny with
non-free stuff" involve modifying a foundation document? There seems to
be less agreement on this. I think it does, but the previous discussion
showed that some people disagree.

This always sounds very awkward to me. So if we would just not fix bugs about non-free stuff everything is ok, but if we want to release it has either to be fixed very quickly or get a vote that modifies a foundation document? Sorry, but I did not and will not agree with that.

We will not release with random non-free stuff, nor will we release with easily fixable non-free stuff, nor will we release with non-free stuff where it's clear that upstream does not care in fixing it. We will release with non-free stuff that does not get fixed in time where upsteam is working on it though.

I don't see why this would need any vote, though if you really think it's useful to have a vote on this, so be it.

Cheers

Luk


Reply to: