Frank Pennycook wrote: > Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Since > different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would > seem valid to decide it by voting.
We don't vote to decide Debian policy, where different opinions are expressed regularly, we don't vote on which bugs of a package should be fixed first, be that package debhelper or ftp.debian.org, and we shouldn't vote on technical matters here either. | 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed "sarge", will | include the "amd64" architecture, based on the work currently hosted | at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ; This is a technical decision; that the amd64 port is ready, necessary, more important that other pending ports, and that that particular implementation of it is the one we want in Debian. It's also a decision about what will constitute sarge, which is, again, a technical decision, much as was the decision about which installer to use with sarge. | 2. that non-compliance of that "amd64" distribution with the Linux | Standard Base specification for IA32 will not be considered a | release-critical bug; This is also a technical decision, just as if we'd decided that amd64 port would not need to use FHS directory locations, or that its shell would not be a POSIX shell. | 3. that we will include it immediately in the "sid" distribution and | auto-building infrastructure, and take all appropriate steps so | that inclusion won't delay the release of "sarge" any further. And those steps would indeed require various technical changes to the mirroring system, and probably much else. > I can understand that these questions are controversial. I don't quite > understand why the suggestion to vote on it is controversial. Go back and take a look at every GR this project has ever voted on, from the logo on, and the quality of the results, vs. decisions made by other means. Voting does not have a good history in this project of getting things done, or even of reaching a decision that most developers are happy with by the first vote. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
