On Thursday 18 December 2008 11:45, Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote: > Margarita Manterola wrote: > > If we do all this, we would be voting: > > > > A) If we trust or not the release team on making the right choices of > > which bugs to ignore and which not (regardless of this being firmware > > issues or what have you). This is from now on, not just for Lenny. > > > > B) If we want to allow sourceless firmware in Debian, defining > > firmware in a way that doesn't give a waiver to anything else without > > source. This is also from now on, not just for Lenny. But it's only > > for firmware, not for everything with licensing problems. > > > > C) If we want to allow stuff with some problems into Lenny, as we > > already did for Sarge and Etch. > > My suggestion would be to vote for (C) first, and then decide the > wording on (A) and (B) depending on the outcome of (C). In which case, > even if there is a conflict, the wording can clarify if the second vote > overrides or doesn't override the first result.
This makes sense to me. I would like to see the current vote abandoned. Manoj said that this will be done if there is sufficient grass-roots support. We have had a series of blog posts on Planet Debian from people who don't like the current vote. I like Brian's idea (or something similar). It seems that the grass-roots support for doing something quite different to the current vote includes me, Brian, and quite a few bloggers on Planet Debian. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
