On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> writes: > >> I am not sure how even choice 1 is over riding that decision. Do >> you believe that the release team, despite their protestations, is >> bundling DFSG violatons into main? If the release team is releasing >> only free stuff, then option 1 is being followed. >> >> I do not see where you get this over ride a delegate bit from, >> unless you are accusing the release team of violating the 100 % free >> debian system bit. >> >> Can you clarify? > > If you go back to my original message on this, you'll see that I said that > *either* option 1 is a delegate override *or* it's meaningless. It sounds > like you're arguing (probably just for the sake of discussion) that it's > meaningless and we should continue on to release lenny even if it passes. > Is that correct?
Actually, no. I was saying that option 1 says: ,---- | Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have non-free | bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has been made, | and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free version of | the Debian operating system, we will delay the release of Lenny until | such point that the work to free the operating system is complete (to | the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008). `---- Now, the only way this overrides a delegate is if the delegates and decide that we are not shipping a free operating system. I did not understand that that was the case. > > *This* is exactly why I think that the ballot is poorly worded and could > have used additional assistance, not in the form of rewriting it, but in > the form of someone saying "uh, this makes no sense -- if you want to > override a decision, be explicit." I agree that any of us could have > offered that assistance, and therefore this is something of a collective > failure. Actuall, given the pwer that the secretary has voer the process, the secretary shoul *NOT* be saying things like "uh, this makes no sense -- if you want to override a decision, be explicit." The secretary should *NOT* be deciding if the contents of the proposal are sane. > There are multiple different ways by which to arrive at the conclusion > that releasing lenny as-is doesn't violate the SC. One of them is that > points 1 and 4 of the SC are in conflict and we steer a course between the > two of them. Did you read SC #5? SC #5, in my eyes, is what tells us how we reconcile SC #1 abd SC #4. > Another is that the DFSG doesn't apply to firmware now. I do not see this in my reading of the SC. > Another is that the SC is a goal that we don't need to meet in full > immediately. While I do not agree for releases, I think that is true for Sid, and I can see how reasonable people might disagree. > Another is that given that the software is already in the > archive, whatever problems there are aren't the release team's problem. > There are probably others. I've seen all of the above put forward by > different people as part of this discussion. I intend to extent to all of > my fellow developers the assumption that they hold their opinions > sincerely and not deceptively. > I can't tell you which interpretation is correct, if any of them -- > that's exactly the point under dispute. I can tell you what I > personally believe, but that doesn't really mean anything. Other > people can arrive at similar conclusions for entirely different > reasons. I don't agree with all of those opinions, but that doesn't > matter -- that just means that we don't have consensus, and we knew > that already. The question now is how do we decide what to do given > the lack of consensus. > I think it was manifestly clear from the way in which Robert Millan made > his proposal and the discussion leading up to it that he intended it to be > a delegate decision override, and I think that even in the absence of > better wording to make that explicit, the project should treat it > accordingly anyway, since that was obviously the intent. Well, I don't see how we can interpret another person's proposal -- but these clarifying questions should have been long resolved now, since asking these questions is why we have a discussion period. > No, I think this is too simplistic. A vote is not solely your work as > secretary. It also has a direct effect on other people's work. It's > effectively part of multiple decision-making processes at the same time. Any developer in a core role has the same impact. The FTP masters, and the release team, have similar impats on the project as a whole. I till think that if a 3:1 majority requirement needs the SC to be interpreted, I am unclear what your suggestion is. My take on it has been that I do as the other delegates do: I interpret the SC for myself, as best I can, and act in goodfaith. I see this situation as no different from that of the FTP master/RM situation. manoj -- "Boy, life takes a long time to live." Steven Wright Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org