On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 04:34:22AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:20:12PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, you also agree that we need to :
>
> > 1) first vote on the exception for etch.
>
> > 2) in a second phase vote for what to do with non-free firmware ?
>
> What? *Neither* of these is the subject of Don's resolution.
There are three proposals which are actually votable on :
1) don's : reaffirm the current social contract, and non-free firmware
belong in non-free.
2) joselin's : we make an indefinite exception for non-free firmware.
3) frederik's proposal : we make an exception for etch.
so, don's and joselin's proposal are about what we do with non-free firmware
in general, either it belongs in non-free as per don's proposal, or either we
can accept them in main, as per joselin's proposal. Those correspond to my 2)
above.
Frederik's proposal deals with etch only, and make the strong point that the
kernel team believes we can move the non-free firmware to non-free for etch+1,
but not for etch. This one corresponds to 1).
You said that the more important question was the one solved by frederik's
proposal.
So, we have now two choices :
A) we do two quickly following ballots :
[ ] make an exception for etch (frederik)
[ ] further discussion
followed by :
[ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
[ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
[ ] further discussion
B) we do a single ballot :
[ ] non-free firmware belong in non-free (don)
[ ] non-free firmware can be accepted in main (josselin) (needs 3:1)
[ ] make an exception for etch (frederik)
[ ] further discussion
In all cases, let's vote on this now, the vote is clearly overdue since
almost two weeks.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
