On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:34:44PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:16:28 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> I'd add something to say that this is *really* the last time we > >> postpone the fixing of the issue and that no further GR should > >> change that. > > > Why? That can't possibly be binding? > > What makes you think that? The developers, by a GR, can > preemptively take the release decision that etch + 1 would not be > released with non-free software in the kernel, and that non-dfsg bits > in main, which violate the SC, would, for once, actually be really > considered RC. > > Why does this not fall under takeing decisions that the > delegates are empowered to take bit?
Because we could just as well hold a vote some time in the future, to say that finally, we are not going to make it for etch+1 and revert that decision. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
