* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 13:25]: > On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040603 10:55]: > > > Bear in mind that violating the DFSG is a release-critical bug, whereas > > > disabling upstream drivers is not. And AFAIK disabling tainted drivers is > > > a > > > trivial task, but splitting the binary-only blobs into non-free isn't. > > > Therefore if the latter requires long-term work, the former has to take > > > priority. So the question is, does it require long-term work?
> > Please remember that there is a decision of the release manager on > > this issue which changes must be pre-sarge, and how to do them: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/04/msg00060.html > Unless I'm missing something, the release manager doesn't have the authority > to override the Social Contract (1.1) that was ratified by GR in April. You might have missed GR 2004-003, and the discussions therein. There are proposals to override the SC for the release of sarge. Also, it is not even decided if the previous sarge release policy is a violation of the social contract (or if the SC does not even ask for it because we want to release rather soon now), but, frankly speaking, I prefer such discussions to take place on debian-vote, and keep debian-kernel and the bts free from these discussions. For us, this decision of the RM is still valid, till he (or another delegate of the DPL, or a GR) tells us otherwise. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
