Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote: >> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the >> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it. > > I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some > examlpes. I'm maybe not using the terminology you'd like, but I hope > you can see what I mean. Here they are again: > > 1. Option X conforms to a foundation document (clearly not 3:1) > 2. Option X changes a foundation document (clearly 3:1) > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation document is the previous option. > 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?) > 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't > want to override the FD (?) > 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say > which of 2-5 it is. 4-6 are normal position statements AFAICS. > 1. and 2. are what we wish every vote were like. > > 3. is things like "we agree that the kernel modules aren't free, but > we'll ship them anyway" or "we'll ship them for this release". This one would be in 4-6 AFAICS. > 4. is things like "we think that firmware can be its own source, so > shipping blobs is fine" > > 5. is something like "Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs. This > does not override the DFSG", which I don't think makes any sense. One cannot override a document. As the DFSG is a document that state our guidelines of what is free, I don't see how it would get changed even temporary when we would have a vote on 'Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs'. > Now, I understand you don't like the use of 'override' when describing > option 3, I'm happy to describe it as something else, but _I_ think that > the constitution at the moment requires 3:1 majority for this sort of > vote. I know other people are equally certain it does not, but this is > why I want to clarify it one way or another, to avoid future upset. Well, what I propose to do is to read the constitution and use its terms instead, which would ease these discussions a lot AFAICS. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
