Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: General Resolution: non-free firmware: results"):
>> I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from this ranking
>> because of the concern that the latter option may have been ruled invalid
>> by the Project Secretary. I prefer one installer (to focus our resources
>> and UX efforts), but voted "recommend installer" above "only one
>> installer" because of the constitutional concerns.
>
> You make a very good point.
I think interpreting other people's votes is very often problematic.
I voted the winning option first, despite a personal preference for
keeping the fully-free installer available.
The reason being that I didn't want to inflict work on the debian-cd
team, and I assume that nobody will object if volunteers turn up to help
build/test the free images. If they're built and tested, I'm pretty sure
they'll be published.
If someone builds them, I will certainly help test them with openQA.
If one of the options that forced the debian-cd team to publish free CDs
had won, then the potential volunteers for building them would not be
nearly so motivated to do the work, because they can just sit back and
let the debian-cd team do what they're told.
As it is, we either get more people to work on the CDs, or perhaps
it's not that important to people after all -- I'm sure we'll find out.
Anyway, I suspect the above isn't the first interpretation that comes to
mind of someone that voted the winning option top.
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature