Re: Purpose of the Constitution and the Foundation Documents
----- "Ian Jackson" wrote:
> Then the ftpmasters and/or the TC will decide to throw it out. If you
> don't trust the ftpmasters and you don't trust the TC then what kind
> of setup could you trust ? If you're only willing to trust yourself
> and your hand-picked co-adherents then I'm afraid you need to go and
> find a much smaller project to be in :-).
What you are avoiding is that the FTP masters or the Technical Committee *is* option D in your scheme. They are the final arbitrators of DFSG compliance. As we've seen, that scheme has led to friction during the last few release cycles. I don't have any problem with the ftp-masters or the technical committee being the authority. I tend to agree with you that it is much better to have people with hard skills performing real tasks as the arbitrator rather than a panel of people whose primary concern is to split philosophical hairs.
At the same time, you yourself note your disatisfaction with the firmware decision. I am suggesting that we must lower the pain threshhold on marking software non-free so that we can correctly classify bytes we are distributing without it becoming an all out war. If there is *any* serious doubt about the compliance of a piece of software then we must be able to mark it non-free without it being the end of the world. As Bdale noted, requiring users to make a conscious decision to enable non-free drivers and software is a great exercise and one that defines our value proposition. Some insist that this is a hugely unacceptable inconvenience but I don't think you have to look far to find people who compliment Debian for being dedicated to clarity and discipline rather than convenient marketing objectives.
Please, acknowledge that what you are suggesting by "option B" would be more clearly labeled as "FTP masters and/or Technical Committee are the final authority for DFSG compliance" with a corrollary that "it is acceptable to leave non-free binaries in main on an ongoing basis if authorized by TC/FTP". Otherwise, we have not reached a formal conclusion on the matter of resolving DFSG compliance RC bugs.
I swear that I am fine even with this outcome if we determine as a group that is where we are going. Personally, I would accept a simple majority to carry these items even though I expect that the second option requires 3:1 under the constitution.
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
ean@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Reply to: