Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 09:45 -0600, Debian Project Secretary a
écrit :
,[ Proposal 6: Exclude source requirements from firmware (defined) ]
| Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into
| hardware components in order to make the component function properly.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This will need wording to change the SC
Since the proponents have not yet formulated a new version for the
changes to the foundation documents, here it is.
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
If anybody wants to change
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:05:40PM +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC they
will need to propose an amendmend.
As proposed this clarifies my and other people's view of what our
foundation documents mean. You are welcome to add
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
amended.
Therefore I think we should decide on a new wording before the vote
instead of letting someone
* Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
amended.
Therefore I think we should decide
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
amended.
As has been pointed out elsewhere,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:24:56PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
The only thing you're doing
is to make Lenny the release with the longest freeze time ever.
Not that I disagree with the rest, but I don't think Robert has much
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:46:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is exactly why I'm going to be voting for one of the options that
modifies the foundation documents and establishes a permanent and
unambiguous decision. I think this has gone on far, far too long and
wastes way too much time
- Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC they
will need to propose an amendmend.
As proposed this clarifies my and other people's view of what our
foundation
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:10:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the subject
prior to every release.
May I ask who are those trolls you refer to?
--
Robert Millan
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 16:04 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:10:07AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the subject
prior to every
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] (17/11/2008):
I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the subject
prior to every release.
May I ask who are those trolls you refer to?
Maybe Robert Millan?
Given his asking “who” rather than “what”, looks like a rather nice
candidate.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
I believe that one of the arguments used is that by doing so, the RT
would be overriding a foundation document, and developers cannot do so
without $higher_power.
Though I agree that the release team cannot put any
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This will need wording to change the SC
Since the proponents have not yet formulated a new version for the
changes to the foundation documents, here it is.
This is not part of my GR as
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
DFSG violations in main.
Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
releasing with some known RC bugs. That’s what they’ve
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes
it necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really
understand your position, but apparently it is not me or you who
decides.
Can the Secretary clarify again
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?
- What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
Secretary does ?
- What if a second vote is organised, but not option
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:32:33 -0600]:
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:32:33 -0600]:
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
Hi,
Folks, calling people discussion here trolls or lying,
sniveling, unethical non-free lovers intent on destroying
Debian's good name does nothing to promote a decent discussion, and
does not belong on this list, in my opinion. If you want to call people
nasty names, take it off
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:39:31PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
It happens they won't be able to, because a vote is already
scheduled. Whatever we decide now, it will be by consensus.
Voting is not a way to achieve consensus, it's a way to take a decision
when consensus failed.
--
·O· Pierre
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:17:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
Folks, calling people discussion here trolls or lying,
sniveling, unethical non-free lovers intent on destroying
Debian's good name does nothing to promote a decent discussion, and
does not belong on this list,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 03:39:31PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Careful; given the uncompromising zealotry of the people arguing for the
removal of sourceless firmware at all costs,
Please would you (all) stop referring to
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a
wording?
If a vote supersedes a part of a foundation document but does not specify
editing instructions, I believe the only correct thing to do is to add the
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:44:45AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
A desktop with a host cpu and components with firmware is directly
analogous to a small cluster of computers. There is no *real*
difference between a host programming its RAID controller and a
cluster manager handing a blade its
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:38:19 -0600]:
The interesting question is if Peter's options wins the 3:1
majority, but loses to another option on the ballot. I suppose a second
vote can then be proposed separately to add the firmware exception to
the DFSG.
Is only
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 15:28]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:20:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Honestly, the time wasted on this whole GR cycle is orders of magnitude more
than the time it would have taken to just finish removing the sourceless
firmware from the main
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 16:26]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:02:00PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
What they are not empowered to do is to decide to release with
DFSG violations in main.
Sorry? The release team is empowered to release, and that includes
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 18:02]:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:50:50PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a
wording?
If a vote supersedes a part of a foundation document but does not specify
editing
(Quote attribution elided on purpose.)
Stop your FUD.
The Release Team isn't violating the Social Contract.
It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a
violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project as a whole,
regardless of which individuals are making
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
If anybody wants to change the words of either the DFSG or the SC
they will need to propose an amendmend.
As proposed
- Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure there is, the RAID controller doesn't run Debian GNU/Linux; it just
runs some uploaded microcode. Your blade will run Debian GNU/Linux (or
whatever else you hand it to).
So it would be legitimate to distribute an install image for Windows
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 13:01 -0600, Ean Schuessler a écrit :
So it would be legitimate to distribute an install image for Windows
Mobile cellular phones as a package in main?
No, the proposal wouldn’t allow that since it only lifts DFSG #2. Such
an image would still fail DFSG #1, #3, #7,
- Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 13:01 -0600, Ean Schuessler a écrit :
No, the proposal wouldn’t allow that since it only lifts DFSG #2. Such
an image would still fail DFSG #1, #3, #7, and probably #5 and #6.
No, it would not. The image is firmware
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 13:26 -0600, Ean Schuessler a écrit :
No, the proposal wouldn’t allow that since it only lifts DFSG #2. Such
an image would still fail DFSG #1, #3, #7, and probably #5 and #6.
No, it would not. The image is firmware and is not subject to DFSG
requirements.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said:
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded.
The Secretary made it
Ean Schuessler wrote:
So it would be legitimate to distribute an install image for Windows
Mobile cellular phones as a package in main? After all, its firmware.
The device won't be running Debian. It will almost certainly have a
different architecture than the desktop. Lots of people have cell
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a decree of
the government that tells us how the law will be applied.
A decree of the government does not do that. It gives supplemental rules and
regulations compatible
- Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ean, with all due respect, but I find your contributions to this
discussion way below par as apparently you can't even be bothered to read
the proposals under discussion.
We are NOT discussing a blanket waiver of all DFSG or SC criteria for
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
to get it considered separately at a later time?
They only need to do so to prevent it from being on the
Ean Schuessler wrote:
I'm sorry, but I am dense. Please help me understand. If I have a
Microsoft device and they provide an opensource Linux installer which
ships a Windows Mobile based firmware then how would this not meet your
distribution criteria? When considering Silverlight(tm)
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:38:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
the problem is that we were told that voting for your amendment makes
it necessary to organise a vote to change the DFSG or the SC… I really
understand your position, but
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a decree of
the government that tells us how the law will be applied.
A decree of the government does not do that.
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
