Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: >> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document >> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract, >> but chooses a certain interpretation (that I think is the correct one >> btw). Other people obviously prefer a different interpretation, and so >> the relevant question is: Whose interpretation is the binding one? >> Currently, it seems to me that unless decided otherwise by a GR, the >> release team has the final say (as explained by Russ). > When you say "chooses a certain interpretation", are you referring to the > one in which SC #4 is interpreted in a way that cannot be complied with no > matter what, only to use this impossibility as proof that SC #4 and SC #1 > contradict each other, and in turn resolving that because the SC is > inconsistent, SC #1 is meant to be read "figuratively"?
I discussed this with Andi in the past, so let me answer: From our point of view, SC#4 is relatively clear: Our users need to be able to use a stable release of Debian and the free software community (not "free software"!) needs us to spread the use of _free_ software. Driving off people to another distribution because we have found yet another sequence of magic numbers that might, or might not, have source code somewhere is a clear violation of SC#4 in our eyes. This is also the reason why I am unhappy about the 3:1/1:1 discussion: From my point of view, releasing with possibly sourceless firmware blobs is what the SC asks us to do, so these options should be 1:1. Not doing that would violate it, so those options should require a 3:1 majority. Now, other people, including our secretary, have quite a different opinion. The problem here is that the secretary's opinion is actually more important than mine, because Manoj can decide the majority requirements. And that sucks - not because Manoj doesn't share my opinion, but because his opinion has a bigger influence on the outcome of this than mine. > I think we discussed this before [1]. In any case, if you think the SC is > so badly broken, you should be ammending the text to disambiguigate it, like > we did in GR 2004 / 003, or even in GR 2003 / 003. What, more editorial changes? This is going to be a lot of fun. Marc -- BOFH #333: A plumber is needed, the network drain is clogged
pgp11AqMYJkIz.pgp
Description: PGP signature