Re: Supermajority first?
Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the basis of that. So, Kurt, what's your take on it? So, the problematic parts are: "1. firmware in Debian does not have to come with source." "2. we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from components of our operating system" If you only look at the first, you could interprete it as a position statement, but even then it's not clear that it's a position statement or not. It appears you either don't agree with my other post or did not read it as there is no interpretation needed to see if something is a position statement. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Supermajority first?
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current > secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super > majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply > supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the basis of > that. > > So, Kurt, what's your take on it? So, the problematic parts are: "1. firmware in Debian does not have to come with source." "2. we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from components of our operating system" If you only look at the first, you could interprete it as a position statement, but even then it's not clear that it's a position statement or not. But 2) makes it totaly unclear what 1) really means. 2) seems to indicate that 1) modifies some foundation document. So my problem with it is that it's too much open for interpretation. If you would like that such an option does not get a 3:1 majority requirement, I suggest you reword it so that it's clearly a position statement. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Supermajority first?
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current > secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super > majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply > supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the basis of > that. As some people already have said, making all the choices in such a ballot modify the Foundation Documents would make the supermajority problems in the previous vote go away, and would more likely solve this issue once and for all (or probably not only affecting the current release or whatever), as it would be written in the FDs. Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Supermajority first?
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:20:21PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Continuing discussions about the supermajority requirements before
> going to the firmware is probably not a bad idea.
I see the point of asking the supermajority vote to be dealt with
before voting on firmware.
However, I don't see it as necessary. The discussion about the issues
of supermajority was born from a ballot badly dealt with; the errors
of that ballot have already been acknowledged and is pointless to
reiterate here. Still, it is very well possible that we can, this
time, vote on the firmware issues without as many problems as before.
For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the basis of
that.
So, Kurt, what's your take on it?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Supermajority first?
Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Charles Plessy wrote: There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx), http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while keeping as a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle? Well sponsors of the proposals have till Sunday to get it to vote AFAICS. Personally I would not mind to have a vote for this first and I won't start the process for a firmware vote before the vote about supermajority is either dropped (when no sponsor reacts) or voted on... Current vote that is in the process of being withdrawn has nothing to do with the supermajority requirement. It's about sponsorship requirements. The supermajority is about things like who decideds if something needs 3:1 supermajority if it's not clear. Ah right, too much things to vote on :-) Well, I think the sponsorships requirement vote that is currently being in process should first be dealt with (either dropped or voted on) first. Continuing discussions about the supermajority requirements before going to the firmware is probably not a bad idea. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Supermajority first?
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Charles Plessy wrote: >> >> There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that >> unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx), >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html >> >> Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while >> keeping as >> a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle? > > Well sponsors of the proposals have till Sunday to get it to vote > AFAICS. Personally I would not mind to have a vote for this first and I > won't start the process for a firmware vote before the vote about > supermajority is either dropped (when no sponsor reacts) or voted on... Current vote that is in the process of being withdrawn has nothing to do with the supermajority requirement. It's about sponsorship requirements. The supermajority is about things like who decideds if something needs 3:1 supermajority if it's not clear. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Supermajority first?
Charles Plessy wrote: Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle, Hi all, There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx), http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while keeping as a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle? Well sponsors of the proposals have till Sunday to get it to vote AFAICS. Personally I would not mind to have a vote for this first and I won't start the process for a firmware vote before the vote about supermajority is either dropped (when no sponsor reacts) or voted on... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Supermajority first? (was: Re: Firmware)
Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle, Hi all, There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx), http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while keeping as a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
