Matthew Johnson <mj...@debian.org> writes: > So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says > "we will do X" but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it > would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all? > What's the point?
Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing it: The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything. To make a change that's binding on all developers going forward, you have to alter a foundation document and get a 3:1 majority. However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution, to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you override the ftp-master's decision that it's non-free, and then you override the release team's decision that it's non-free, and so forth. Those overrides aren't binding on any future developer decisions, only on those specific ones. I agree wholeheartedly with Raphael: I don't see this as any real threat. Even people who think we should ship NVidia drivers in main aren't going to vote in sufficient numbers for a GR that says they meet the DFSG. (And if they did, we have other problems that voting rules aren't going to fix, no matter what rules we're trying to apply.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org