On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:34:33PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx writes ("General Resolution: non-free
>firmware: results"):
>> The results of the General Resolution about non-free firmware:
>> Option 5 "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer"
>>
>> The details of the results are available at:
>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003
>
>6 votes is a very tight margin between "one installer" and "two
>installers".
>
>Observe also that "Recommend installer containing non-free firmware"
>beat "Only one installer" by 12 votes. I hesitate to say this, but it
>seems to me that the hypothetical option "Change SC, recommend
>installer containing non-free firmware" would have won if it had been
>on the ballot.
>
>Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
>easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
>to do so.
Nod. As I said in my mail and blog at the weekend, my aim is to leave
the options in code and config available to support that.
>I think we might even want to link to it from the official page,
>inverting the way we currently do it.
Maybe, let's see how it goes.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
