Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Hi Russ (2022.08.30_02:55:11_+0000)
> Also, if the 3:1 majority option doesn't pass but a 1:1 option that
> doesn't require a supermajority does pass, that's also useful
> information. (For example, I believe that would imply that such an
> installer has to continue to be labeled as unofficial and not a part
> of the Debian system, since I think that's the plain meaning of point
> 5 of the Social Contract.)
Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
interpretation.
I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA.
This is because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update
the Social Contract to explain how our non-free-firmware section works,
and what the images provide.
If the 3:1 option didn't pass, that wouldn't mean I don't stand behind
the 1:1 option of including non-free-firmware on images. It just means
we didn't get enough votes to change the SC.
Voting for the 3:1 option shouldn't effectively bury the 1:1 option, or
vice-versa. The point of ranked-choice voting is to be able to select
either of two acceptable options.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Reply to: