On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Armstrong wrote: > As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it > would be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the > firmware problem before exceptions are granted, but I don't have any > objections to it being on the same ballot as the other options. [In > case of a split, I would expect the clarification option to be > overridden to the extent necessary by the other options; either by > being voted on slightly before or by a specific amendment saying > such.]
After some discussion on IRC, I believe that splitting out Choice #1 (DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works) from the rest of the options is a proper course of action. This is primarily because it was never intended to deal with affirming or vacating decisions about exceptions for firmware for the purpose of releasing etch, but only to clarify what the DFSG says in regards to the source code requirements for works, and what Debian should be doing about source for works in general, both those that we distribute and those we do not. Baring objection, I plan on calling for a vote with a suggested balot containing only this option in a few days (no later than 09-27).[1] [The Secretary, of course, can override this suggested ballot.] This will get the clarification out of the way, and allow the etch release exception proposals to override it to the extent necessary. Don Armstrong 1: It is my understanding that I could call for a vote now, but as this may be controversial, some measure of restraint seemed appropriate. -- The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair. -- Douglas Adams _Mostly Harmless_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
