On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:06:25 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Reading debian-vote, I think it would be helpful if we stated our > opinion formally. There still seems to be some dispute. I agree with the first part of this. > I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a > vote. I'm hoping we can get enough of the TC to vote in favour to > get an official resolution well before the close of voting. > Headline advice: we recommend that Developers vote as follows: > either B,D,E,C,A,F,FD (2453167) Grandfather clause for Sarge or > D,B,E,C,A,F,FD (4253167) Rescind Social Contract changes > It seems to us that: > * The Social Contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the > release of Sarge as-is. > * We would like to see Sarge's release go in parallel with the > time-consuming fixes to the copyright problems. > Therefore: > * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the Social > Contract. If no waiver is forthcoming, then Sarge will not be > released until all of the problematic material has been sorted > out. > * If such a grandfather resolution does not pass with a 3:1 > supermajority then the Social Contract is not waived and sarge > should not be released until the non-free stuff is removed > somehow. > We are pleased to see this waiver process is happening and will > probably result in a resolution in time. So: > * The Release Manager should plan for such a resolution to either > grandfather the existing situation, or permit the release of > Sarge some other way. To do anything else would be to prejudge > the issue. > * Of the General Resolution currently being voted on, the effects > as we see them on the Sarge release process are as follows: > B,D,E: Sarge will go ahead (software quality permitting). C: > Sarge will be delayed to remove certain non-free items not > covered by the grandfather clause (see below). > A: Sarge will go ahead if it can be done by 2004-09-01. F: > Sarge will be delayed to remove the non-free `non-software'. OK so far. > We offer the following observations advice to the Developers as > they cast their votes: [SNIP] I strongly feel we should not be in the position of advising people how to vote. > We also note that the Technical Committee has no formal authority > in this area. The questions being disputed are not technical. Any > authority we have derives only from Release Manager (who has > delegated this controversial decision to us) and of course from our > power to state our opinions. This paragraph is OK as well. manoj -- He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder. M.C. Escher Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C