On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least > several people here think the result of "Further discussion" is:
Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not authoritative. That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation: > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes > ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: No > iii What do we do for Lenny: Wait > iV Do we modify foundation documents: No > v Do we override foundation documents No it should rather be "Yes": > ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes Rationale: with "further discussion" nothing changes. Today RMs are empowered, by delegation, to decide upon transitions and "lenny-ignore" tags. It will be the same tomorrow if "further discussion" wins. If people disagree with that, they can overrule delegates' decision as supported by our constitution. BTW, this is yet another hint that separate ballots would have been better, because we are implicitly calling for another GR in some special case, but unfortunately Dato's proposal to split ballots doesn't seem to have gained enough momentum. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
