Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as not blocking the release. [...] It seems that someone doesn't know the meaning of that tag. Would a GR promoting some release manager definition of the meaning of that tag to a postition statement be a simple settlement of much of this dispute? Sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but I'm sick of all these false allegations. Yes, it did look like a personal attack and I'm sick of everyone who's making those. Advance apologies are a signal that the comment probably shouldn't be sent in that form. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:49:06PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: I'm just making a point that Robert assumed the project shared his views and proposed a GR accordingly, instead of realizing he could be wrong, and thought of having a different GR first. If I'm proposing a GR, it is obviously with the hope that the project will agree with at least one of the options (remember, I proposed 3 very different options). Of course I don't know for sure. If we could read everyone's minds we wouldn't need a voting process after all. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:14:28PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: Bas Wijnen wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM bashing? I hope I didn't take part in that. I'm very happy with the work done by the RMs. But that doesn't mean I want to give them the power to overrule the SC without a GR. Thanks Bas. I completely share your view. It's unfortunate that it's so poorly understood :-( Hmm, it's not us that uploaded the packages that broke the SC without a GR, it's not us that accepted these packages into the archive, it's not us alone that tolerated these without searching and filing bugs for the issues till the release was near, it's not us alone that did wait to start fixing the bugs till the release was near. It's only us that wanted it to be clear that if the bugs won't be fixed in time, we would not wait for the fixes before releasing... that's all the ignore tags tells. It's not your fault! Nobody (well, at least not me) is pretending that you're the source of this problem. However, that doesn't mean that the solution you want to apply is legitimate. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Millan wrote: If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1]. Please stop repeating in an endless loop that the Release Team must focus on SC #1, while you are ignoring SC #4. As you wish. Instead of repeating myself, I will refer you to the mail in which I already replied to the same argument: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00039.html -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:31:59 +0100]: But no, you just carried on and ignored my concerns. Thank you, Robert. Let's be more a bit more constructive: you say you act out of alarm by seeing the release team take some decisions for the project. I claim that the Release Team is entitled to this decision, because our job is just copying bits of unstable/Packages.gz to testing/Packages.gz, and the project should get its act together about unstable/Packages.gz. You don't share that view, and hence you come up with this proposal. Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not agree with you in not sharing that view? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - Carlos baila -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Lars Wirzenius [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:42:30 +0200]: ti, 2008-11-11 kello 16:39 +0100, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti: Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not agree with you in not sharing that view? It is to determine the will of the project as a whole that we have the GR process. Until then, it's all speculation. I'm just making a point that Robert assumed the project shared his views and proposed a GR accordingly, instead of realizing he could be wrong, and thought of having a different GR first. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - Martín se ha ido para siempre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
ti, 2008-11-11 kello 16:39 +0100, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti: Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not agree with you in not sharing that view? It is to determine the will of the project as a whole that we have the GR process. Until then, it's all speculation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM bashing? Simple statistics: there are many DDs, but only few RMs. Simple sociology: those who are content, don't complain. Those also don't go in endless loops repeating what was said already, since it's not them who want to change anything. Just €0.02 ;-) Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkZw/YACgkQC1NzPRl9qEVzjgCfff7kkvrB9w8a8dkbJRmpIdec s3sAnRWxmNHp1fVT2T9RF9e3Gl+4Iw6d =ww26 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: Yes, your job is only concerned about copying bits. Then again, what isn't? I think this was just rhetoric, wasn't it? Dato mentioned bits to stress that the Release Team only controls what flows from unstable to testing, while you took bits literally as information encoding, which is a bit of a stretch of Dato's point (at least according to my reading of it). But if what you're trying to say is that it's not all your fault as Release Team, I acknowledge that. Then again, it's a really poor excuse to justify missbehaviour because of pre-existing missbehaviour somewhere else. Well, it is a poor excuse *if* you consider the Release Team to have full responsibility of everything which is released in Debian. I think it is not the case, they should be held responsible only (again with double quotes, because AFAICT it is not the simplest/funniest job ever) for their decisions about what migrates and what doesn't. The content which migrates is the main responsibility of the maintainer, then (in case of DFSG violations / illegal stuff) also of FTP masters. Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM bashing? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: But if what you're trying to say is that it's not all your fault as Release Team, I acknowledge that. Then again, it's a really poor excuse to justify missbehaviour because of pre-existing missbehaviour somewhere else. Well, it is a poor excuse *if* you consider the Release Team to have full responsibility of everything which is released in Debian. Of course they don't. But if the release-team tags a DFSG-violation lenny-ignore, then they do have responsibility for setting that tag. The result of that tag is that the known DFSG-violation is willfully accepted into the release. The argument is that the RMs shouldn't have the power to decide that. Nobody is claiming (AFAIK) that the RMs are responsible for things they didn't notice. This is about things they noticed, and actively accepted. I think it is not the case, they should be held responsible only (again with double quotes, because AFAICT it is not the simplest/funniest job ever) for their decisions about what migrates and what doesn't. Right. And (the relevant category in this discussion) what is accepted in the release even though there is an RC bug on it. The content which migrates is the main responsibility of the maintainer, then (in case of DFSG violations / illegal stuff) also of FTP masters. Yes, but in both those cases problems can happen (and stay) because of inactivity. The problem with the final step is that it's active, so we can't say sorry, we missed that one. I'm not saying that maintainers are always doing the right thing, but they can always claim that they didn't know about it (until a bug is filed). That makes that part of the problem a lot harder to fix. Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM bashing? I hope I didn't take part in that. I'm very happy with the work done by the RMs. But that doesn't mean I want to give them the power to overrule the SC without a GR. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Robert Millan [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:06 +0100]: But, at the same time, I don't think the Release Team should be allowed to make this kind of decisions unilaterally. Then we should be having that vote, and nothing else, as I already explained in [1], which you ignored. Release Team can decide not to block the release on DFSG compliance issues: yes, no. That's simple enough, and that's the vote that we ought to be having. If the quoted bit was your concern all the time, I don't understand why, on the other hand, we have a vote with 5 options (and counting). We should have the vote I mentioned and, if the answer is no, then have *this* vote. But no, you just carried on and ignored my concerns. Thank you, Robert. [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - En el rascacielos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
[forwarding for Sven Luther, unedited and uncensored] [Johannes Wiedersich] On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 07:42:47PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Millan wrote: If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1]. Please stop repeating in an endless loop that the Release Team must focus on SC #1, while you are ignoring SC #4. Else I will keep repeating ad nauseam that debian promises its users in SC #4 to provide an integrated system of high-quality materials. I don't consider an OS that depends for installation (and basic network functionality) on software outside its installation media an 'integrated system' [1]. Is it not for that that SC #5 is there and that we provide the non-free infrastructure ? What is so difficult about providing good support for non-free ? You accuse Robert to go into an endless repeating loop, bt the argumentation you are used where already present in the etch non-free firmware vote, as well as in the non-free support vote of even earlier. Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored, Sadly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1 supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software in question served in the first place. The basic difference is that in one case it is the result of an unintended mistake [1], and in the other it is the result of known, willfull infringement of the Social Contract. It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the Release Team (lenny-ignore tag). [1] e.g. FTP masters not finding a specific violation during routine inspection [2], or package maintainers uploading new upstream versions that introduce new violations. [2] or finding and ignoring them, in which case this *is* a serious problem, not an example that can be used to justify more of the same. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:48:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1 supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software in question served in the first place. The basic difference is that in one case it is the result of an unintended mistake [1], and in the other it is the result of known, willfull infringement of the Social Contract. It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the Release Team (lenny-ignore tag). -1 Troll -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs. -- Mike Andrews -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Mon, Nov 10 2008, Luk Claes wrote: Debian Project Secretary wrote: ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian is more than the releases although you seem to think it's not? So in no way is a decision about the release without talking about the archive in all its components going to override the SC. ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` Same here. ,[ Proposal 4 ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement? The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give the authority; it just concentrates on what the project is allowing itself to do. In a way, the contents of parts of the archive (Sid and testing), are works in progress. When we release, collectively, we are releasing a finished version of the Debian system. No one person or group is responsible for the Debian system, in my view, we are all involved in it. And we are all collectively responsible for ensuring that the Debian system is 100% free. Even if there are missteps during the preparation phase, the finished product, whch would be the current incarnation of the Debian system, must meet the social contract. The language of the social contract leaves little wiggle room. manoj -- You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Debian Project Secretary wrote: ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` Wrong, the release doesn't decide what's in the archive or not. Debian is more than the releases although you seem to think it's not? So in no way is a decision about the release without talking about the archive in all its components going to override the SC. ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` Same here. ,[ Proposal 4 ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` Same here. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
This one time, at band camp, Manoj Srivastava said: I am not sure what you consider to be wrong here. Are you objecting to the title of the proposal? Or to the majority requirement? The proposal title does not mention which parts of Debian would be give the authority; it just concentrates on what the project is allowing itself to do. In a way, the contents of parts of the archive (Sid and testing), are works in progress. When we release, collectively, we are releasing a finished version of the Debian system. No one person or group is responsible for the Debian system, in my view, we are all involved in it. And we are all collectively responsible for ensuring that the Debian system is 100% free. Even if there are missteps during the preparation phase, the finished product, whch would be the current incarnation of the Debian system, must meet the social contract. The language of the social contract leaves little wiggle room. I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1 supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software in question served in the first place. It seems to me that what you're saying is that it's fine to have a non-free kernel or glibc side by side with a broken one in the same directory, so long as the non-free one isn't listed in the Packages file that the stable symlink points to. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:23:03PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: ,[ Proposal 4 ] | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable release of the | high quality Debian is known for, release more or less on time, and to | minimize the usage of problematic software. We acknowledge that there | is more than just one minefield our core developers and the release | team are working at. | | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making ^ \ typo: missing e here We need a title for proposal 4, which allows the release team to override the social contract using case-by-case decisions. What about delegate decision to the release team ? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Hi, At this point, the following people have sponsored and seconded the proposals detailed below. As best I can tell, the final proposal (4) to get enough sponsors got it at Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:38:41 UTC. So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on November 23th, or, if the DPL desires to shorten the discussion period, november 16th). (BTW, I am a huge fan of these embedded spreadsheets) |+---+---+---+---| || 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |+---+---+---+---| | Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED]| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | | | | | Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | 1 | | | | Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Hubert Chathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | | 1 | | Alexander Reichle-Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | 1 | | Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | | | Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | 1 | | Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | 1 | | Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | 1 | 1 | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rémi Vanicat) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |+---+---+---+---| || 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | |+---+---+---+---| #+TBLFM: $2=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$3=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$4=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$5=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED]) The ballot and wml for the vote web pages should now be drafted by the sponsors, to be put into place by the secretary team. manoj ,[ Proposal 1: reaffirm the Social Contract ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that we promised to deliver a 100% free operating system | (Social Contract #1); | | 3. 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). ` ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware | issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the | last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the | kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues | have not yet been addressed; | | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the | progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian | relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge | as of 1 November 2008); | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so. | | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance | issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out; | | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the | progress made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian | relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge | as of 1 November 2008); | | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as | a best-effort process. | | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 4 ] | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:23:03PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: Hi, At this point, the following people have sponsored and seconded the proposals detailed below. As best I can tell, the final proposal (4) to get enough sponsors got it at Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:38:41 UTC. So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on November 23th, or, if the DPL desires to shorten the discussion period, november 16th). We've had more than enough discussion about this - please start ASAP. -- Steve McIntyre, Debian Project Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Debian Project Secretary [Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:23:03 -0600]: ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` I don't think those lines were meant to be part of the ballot text, But I am leaning to think that these are accurate, and I left them in so people know what the ballot might look like. they were just Robert's opinion. And, since the vote for Etch was 1:1, I think these should be as well: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 The critical difference is that in etch we said that: , and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. This means that everything shipped in Debian complied with the DFSG, even if it did might not meet the GPL requirement of preferred form of source modification. As far as it went, we just did not investigate whether the blob was actually the format that the developers worked with, unlikely as that seems. The current amendment removes the DFSG requirement, and falls afoul of the social contract statement about everything being 100% free. The etch exception was very narrowly scoped; it only decided not to look into whether the firmware blob was or was not the preferred form of modification. The new exception seems much broader -- we are, for isntance, legally allowed to ship nvidia binary drivers, which would be acceptable under the current clause. ,[ Proposal 4 ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` In this case that sentence wasn't even included in the text by Andreas, where did it come from?! Anyway, same reasoning as above applies. Yes. I thought about the proposal, and it seems to say that Debian shall be 100% free, except when a handful of delegates think it is better not to. That override of the social contact is what earned this the 3:1 override. (what the foundation doc does not say anything about is up to the dpl and the delegates to manage as they wish, but overriding the foundation docs is a bigger deal). If this option passes, we can just amend the foundation document to match the current will of the people. manoj -- She has an alarm clock and a phone that don't ring -- they applaud. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Debian Project Secretary [Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:23:03 -0600]: Hi, Hello, ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` I don't think those lines were meant to be part of the ballot text, they were just Robert's opinion. And, since the vote for Etch was 1:1, I think these should be as well: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 ,[ Proposal 4 ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` In this case that sentence wasn't even included in the text by Andreas, where did it come from?! Anyway, same reasoning as above applies. Please amend. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Madeleine Peyroux - Careless love -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
