On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:49:51AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 19:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
It makes an advisory project statement about the project interpretation of
the FD. DDs can choose to follow that interpretation or not as they
choose in their own work, but I would
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
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 (?)
This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for
Dear all,
in my impression, the problem in the vote for the Lenny release is that at the
end it became an aggreagation of things of which nobody was satisfied, and of
which nobody was feeling responsible anymore. To avoid this, I propose three
actions.
First, establishing the impartiality of the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:52:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The point is, language isn't math, and as a result the same
text will often mean one thing to one person, and something entirely
else to another.
Which is my point. And people do have different opinions about
it. So you now
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so in the
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
seem to temporary override the Foundation
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.
Actually, they are interpreting
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
It does not say how to interprete
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:43:45PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I have no problem with considering the following to be position
statements:
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid
position statement.
That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are
our
On Sat Mar 14 19:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
It makes an advisory project statement about the project interpretation of
the FD. DDs can choose to follow that interpretation or not as they
choose in their own work, but I would expect that people who didn't have a
strong opinion would tend to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:49:51AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Maybe I just see GRs as a last resort where we really really need a
definitive answer.
Except they aren't; they're used any time six developers *think* we need a
definitive answer, which is not the same thing.
Certainly after
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
again. To avoid
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come
up
On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
I also believe that the secretary should have the power
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
Hmm, I thought you were going to
On Sat Mar 14 12:51, Luk Claes wrote:
Hmm, I thought the reason we delayed it till after the release is so we
could discuss things and only when we have a consensus to change or seem
to have clear options, to get to a vote.
As I saw your name mentioned next to the constitutional issues, I
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents,
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
Positions (in no particular order):
1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't
matter
On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
an option that doesn't do so. So that would be option 2
On Sat Mar 14 12:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a
3:1 majority. This is true
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Sat Mar 14 12:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that
Foundation Document does not modify the document and therefore does
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
Positions (in no particular order):
1 The supermajority
Kurt Roeckx k...@roeckx.be writes:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the
vote proceeds. Such overrides require a 3:1
Dear all,
The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come up
again. To avoid overloading -project I'd like to move the
26 matches
Mail list logo
