On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:04:43AM +0000, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote: > In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that > option x received over option y. > Option > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > === === === === === === === > Option 1 46 60 72 73 89 117 > Option 2 281 160 160 171 177 224 > Option 3 255 61 125 137 151 204 > Option 4 253 121 146 160 166 194 > Option 5 234 105 128 135 136 191 > Option 6 220 118 134 125 134 180 > Option 7 226 129 145 153 160 169
> Dropping Option 1 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 2 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 3 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 4 because of Majority. [...]
> Dropping Option 6 because of Majority. [...]
> The Schwartz Set contains:
> Option 5 "Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise"
If you consider the same results, without the supermajority requirements
for options 2, 3, 4 and 6, you get:
Winner: Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
It beats the second choice by 39 votes (160 versus 121), which is:
Second: Option 4: Empower the release team to decide ...
They beat the third choice by 99 votes (160 versus 61) and 11 votes (146 versus
125) respectively, which is:
Third: Option 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations
They in turn beat the fourth choice (which was the winning option,
choice 5) by, respectively, 66 votes (171 versus 105), 25 votes (160
versus 135), and 9 votes (137 versus 128).
Fourth: Option 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
(winner as per listed supermajority requirements and devotee's mail)
Option 5 beat option 6 by only two votes (136 versus 134), while the others
beat option 6 by, respectively, 59 votes (177 v 118), and 41 votes (166 v 125),
17 votes (151 v 134).
Fifth: Option 6: Exclude source requirements for firmware (defined)
Further discussion came sixth, beaten by between 95 votes (option 2),
and 11 votes (option 6), with Reaffirm the social contract last, defeated
by further discussion by 109 votes.
The only differences between the text of options 2 and 5 seems to be that
option 2 says:
Option 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless
firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of
Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so.
whereas option 5 has an additional subclause:
Option 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
4. [same text as above, with the addition of:]
and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that
complies with the DFSG.
It's possible that has no practical difference, in which case all the
furour over the running of the vote has no practical effect.
If there are actual cases where the difference is important (firmware
still included in the kernel or other packages that's explicitly licensed
as non-free, rather than being licensed under the GPL or other free
license, but not including something that looks like source code),
then I guess it's a question of whether the immediate past secretary's
ruling on the supermajority requirements for the vote are going to be
considered binding.
> The voters have spoken, the bastards... --unknown
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
