Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:36:37AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I view the official Debian install image as a component of Debian, and
> > consequently if the (only) official Debian install image were to contain
> > non-free bits then we would violate DSC#1.
> I also find this problematic. As far as I can tell, the alternatives on
> this vote that results in Debian shipping non-free software will make
> the project violate the current DSC.
> Reading https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html I don't
> understand who decides the majority requirements for voting options, can
> someone explain? Is it the project secretary? What are they for the
> current vote?
The majority requirement depends on which of the powers in 4.2 they
want to use. Some of the previous GRs where very explicit in which power
they want to use, like saying it's a position statement.
I currently believe that non of the options require a 3:1 majority since
they do not amend the constitution or a Foundation Document.
But it's currently not clear if this is a technical or non-technical
decision, and so might require a 2:1 majority.
> I believe it would be bad for the project if the supermajority
> requirements of changing a fundational document is worked around by
> approving a GR vote with simple majority that says things contrary to
> what the DSC says.
If you believe that any of the options conflict with the DSC, I would
like to see a discussion about that too.
It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority
requirement on it because they think it conflicts.
However, if an option that might conflict wins, the Secretary might
have to decide if it conflicts or not, and if it conflicts void the