Re: [AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.
Kurt Roeckx a écrit : I want to amendment the following proposal: === START OF PROPOSAL === Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually as hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given piece of hardware, and be run outside the main memory space of the main processor(s). 0. This resolution overrides the resolution just voted (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007). 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software community (Social Contract #4); 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware issue, both upstream and in the debian packaging; however, it is not yet finally sorted out. 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a best-effort process, and in no case add additional problematic material to the upstream released kernel tarball. 4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even if their license does not normally allow modification, as long as we are legally allowed to distribute them. 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual license, and thus implicitly fall under the generic linux kernel GPL license. We will include these firmware in Debian Etch and review them after the release. Vendors of such firmware may wish to investigate the licensing terms, and make sure the GPL distribution conditions are respected, especially with regards to source availability. 6. We will include those firmware into the debian linux kernel package as well as the installer components (.udebs) used by the debian-installer. END OF PROPOSAL And replace the text with: BEGIN OF PROPOSAL We, the Debian project, find freeness that we want for firmware used by the kernel is an important question, and that we will have to deal with this. However, we think that we as a project need more time to deal with it, and having more general resolutions isn't going to solve this. Therefor we will not have another general resolution about firmware until after the release of etch and atleast 6 moths have passed since this general resolution. This does not mean we will not discuss this issue, or work on getting things better. END OF PROPOSAL I'm open for suggestions on how to better word this. Why are you trying to get a decision from Debian developers if the decision can be overridden by the release team as state in the "Release standards" [1]: "Further to this, certain issues may be exempted from being considered release critical for etch by the release manager. This is expressed by tagging the report "etch-ignore"; this should not be done without explicit authorisation from the release manager." Aurelien [1] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:14:58AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > BEGIN OF PROPOSAL > We, the Debian project, find freeness that we want for firmware used by > the kernel is an important question, and that we will have to deal with > this. However, we think that we as a project need more time to deal > with it, and having more general resolutions isn't going to solve this. > > Therefor we will not have another general resolution about firmware until > after the release of etch and atleast 6 moths have passed since this > general resolution. This does not mean we will not discuss this issue, > or work on getting things better. > END OF PROPOSAL Kurt, you do know that even if you passed this, it is anti-constitutional, and not binding any way ? I proposed a "no more GRs until the etch release" proposal a few weeks ago, you know. In any case, your proposal will be put to vote after the already seconded proposal you are unhappy with. Also, i want you to explain something about this. You say the current resolution is fine, while you said that you voted without even reading it, and that it has some consequences that the kernel team didn't want. Also, i want to know from you how a resolution that the RMs already said, before the vote was completed, that they would not respect it, can in any sense of the word be a good proposal. Are you going to step behind your words, and help the kernel team investigate those issues, as well help coding the code which will prune the kernel from those firmwares the current resolution forces us to remove ? Are you going to do user support, when those users will be unable to use debian to install their systems ? Or maybe you will single-handedly implement non-free loading support in d-i, and convince the d-i leadership that they should indeed include it in etch, despite them saying "No way" about exactly this. Not speaking about those in the kernel team who said they would leave if those firmwares where removed. Or do you think we should indeed delay etch at least 6 months as the d-i team said we should. This is indeed a possibility, but then why not say so directly ? There are many folk who are all so happy to critic my mails and actions and thinkings about the subject, but then, they don't care about the mess caused, because they don't will be the ones having to handle it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.
This one time, at band camp, Kurt Roeckx said: > I want to amendment the following proposal: > > > === START OF PROPOSAL === > > Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned > > below > > designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, > > usually as > > hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given piece > > of > > hardware, and be run outside the main memory space of the main processor(s). > > > > 0. This resolution overrides the resolution just voted > > (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007). > > > > 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software > > community (Social Contract #4); > > > > 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware > > issue, both upstream and in the debian packaging; however, it is not > > yet finally sorted out. > > > > 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit > > out; > > for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a > > best-effort process, and in no case add additional problematic material > > to the upstream released kernel tarball. > > > > 4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even if their > > license > > does not normally allow modification, as long as we are legally > > allowed to > > distribute them. > > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual > > license, > > and thus implicitly fall under the generic linux kernel GPL license. > > We will include these firmware in Debian Etch and review them after the > > release. Vendors of such firmware may wish to investigate the licensing > > terms, and make sure the GPL distribution conditions are respected, > > especially with regards to source availability. > > > > 6. We will include those firmware into the debian linux kernel package as > > well > > as the installer components (.udebs) used by the debian-installer. > > END OF PROPOSAL > > And replace the text with: > > BEGIN OF PROPOSAL > We, the Debian project, find freeness that we want for firmware used by > the kernel is an important question, and that we will have to deal with > this. However, we think that we as a project need more time to deal > with it, and having more general resolutions isn't going to solve this. > > Therefor we will not have another general resolution about firmware until > after the release of etch and atleast 6 moths have passed since this > general resolution. This does not mean we will not discuss this issue, > or work on getting things better. > END OF PROPOSAL Seconded. > I'm open for suggestions on how to better word this. Something along the lines of "for the love of God will you all just shut up for five minutes" is probably out of the question, huh? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[AMENDMENT] Re: seconds searched for override of resolution 007 needed.
I want to amendment the following proposal: > === START OF PROPOSAL === > Definition: For the purpose of this resolution, the "firmware" mentioned below > designates binary data included in some of the linux kernel drivers, usually > as > hex-encoded variables and whose purpose is to be loaded into a given piece of > hardware, and be run outside the main memory space of the main processor(s). > > 0. This resolution overrides the resolution just voted > (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007). > > 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software > community (Social Contract #4); > > 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware > issue, both upstream and in the debian packaging; however, it is not > yet finally sorted out. > > 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit > out; > for this reason, we will treat removal of problematic firmware as a > best-effort process, and in no case add additional problematic material > to the upstream released kernel tarball. > > 4. We allow inclusion of such firmware into Debian Etch, even if their > license > does not normally allow modification, as long as we are legally allowed > to > distribute them. > 5. We further note that some of these firmware do not have individual > license, > and thus implicitly fall under the generic linux kernel GPL license. > We will include these firmware in Debian Etch and review them after the > release. Vendors of such firmware may wish to investigate the licensing > terms, and make sure the GPL distribution conditions are respected, > especially with regards to source availability. > > 6. We will include those firmware into the debian linux kernel package as > well > as the installer components (.udebs) used by the debian-installer. > END OF PROPOSAL And replace the text with: BEGIN OF PROPOSAL We, the Debian project, find freeness that we want for firmware used by the kernel is an important question, and that we will have to deal with this. However, we think that we as a project need more time to deal with it, and having more general resolutions isn't going to solve this. Therefor we will not have another general resolution about firmware until after the release of etch and atleast 6 moths have passed since this general resolution. This does not mean we will not discuss this issue, or work on getting things better. END OF PROPOSAL I'm open for suggestions on how to better word this. Kurt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
