Steve McIntyre <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be >>> one very simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The >>> "statement of the day" is a nice addition, but can risk being >>> nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely second a ballot option that would >>> propose just this. >> In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below. >> >> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards >> >> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do >> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages >> are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling >> infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug >> tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate >> archive areas. Yes, I think this is even better if we're interested in going for a more complete rework of that point. > That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks! Steve, what do you think about the suggestion above that we have a ballot option that only changes the SC and doesn't issue a statement on an issue of the day, and thus doesn't include the text of your proposal? I'm worried that may feel like the project isn't providing enough guidance or a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true. The way I would read such a result is that the project leaves it up to the installer team whether to include firmware or not, and whether to have more than one installer, and I wasn't sure if that achieved what you wanted when starting this GR. I generally lean towards shorter GRs being better and leaving most decisions to the relevant team, but only if that works for the relevant team. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
