On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:45:48AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > However, analysis of the voting results in this and prior GRs relating
> > to similar issues in prior releases indicates to me that Debian
> > developers in general would prefer to release with faults than to defer
> > release until some arbitrary level of perfection is achieved.
>
> What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
> opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
I'm not sure I agree with your sense of distinction here. I think what
I'm saying is a fair rationalization of picking any of 2-5 over 1. And,
at some point I think we cross the line from drawing meaningful
inferences from a limited data set to fiddling with divining rods...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divining_rod
However, having said that, and since you asked, I do have a thought on
this. Options 2 and 5 share the attribute that neither explicitly
asserts that the firmware issue is a DFSG violation, while 3 and 4 both
seem to. Perhaps our community is willing to admit there's a problem,
but isn't convinced or doesn't want to admit that the problem is a clear
contradiction of the social contract.
Bdale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
