----- "Pierre Habouzit" <madco...@debian.org> wrote: > The point is, the secretary chooses interpretations that suits his own > proposals to the vote. Explain to me how the "release lenny" options > need [3:1] supermajority where the very same vote didn't need it in the > past ?
>From a rigorous perspective, the release Etch vote should have been 3:1. If we >are worth our salt we should not be allowing DFSG violations past "testing" >and developers should be aggressive about filing bugs on errant packages. I >can understand the necessity of providing certain users non-free drivers to >help them get their equipment going. Serious users should be selecting >equipment that won't have install problems. Last time I checked, this was a >distribution for serious users (that also happens to want to be friendly to >people just getting started). I fail to understand how serious Debian >Developers arrive at a point where enforcing the DFSG is an exercise for >"zealots". -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
