Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be
>>> one very simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The
>>> "statement of the day" is a nice addition, but can risk being
>>> nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely second a ballot option that would
>>> propose just this.
>> In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.
>>
>> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>>
>> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
>> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
>> are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
>> infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
>> tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
>> archive areas.
Yes, I think this is even better if we're interested in going for a more
complete rework of that point.
> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!
Steve, what do you think about the suggestion above that we have a ballot
option that only changes the SC and doesn't issue a statement on an issue
of the day, and thus doesn't include the text of your proposal? I'm
worried that may feel like the project isn't providing enough guidance or
a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true.
The way I would read such a result is that the project leaves it up to the
installer team whether to include firmware or not, and whether to have
more than one installer, and I wasn't sure if that achieved what you
wanted when starting this GR.
I generally lean towards shorter GRs being better and leaving most
decisions to the relevant team, but only if that works for the relevant
team.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: