Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > But it's currently not clear if this is a technical or non-technical > decision, and so might require a 2:1 majority.
I forgot to comment on this point in my other message, but for what it's worth, I have a hard time seeing any of the current ballot options as technical. They all state policy decisions and desired outcomes and don't specify a techncial means to accomplish those outcomes (which is the sort of thing that I think would trigger the 2:1 majority requirement). The phrasing of the constitution here is that the 2:1 majority is required for decisions that are authorized by the powers of the Technical Committee, and I think this sort of policy decision about how to handle non-free software is clearly outside the scope of the Technical Committee. I can't imagine the TC being comfortable making a decision like this, or the project being comfortable having them do it. For others reading, here's what the constitution says are the powers of the Technical Committee (there are other clauses, but I don't think they're relevant here): 1. Decide on any matter of technical policy. This includes the contents of the technical policy manuals, developers' reference materials, example packages and the behaviour of non-experimental package building tools. (In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or documentation makes decisions initially, however; see 6.3(5).) 2. Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap. In cases where Developers need to implement compatible technical policies or stances (for example, if they disagree about the priorities of conflicting packages, or about ownership of a command name, or about which package is responsible for a bug that both maintainers agree is a bug, or about who should be the maintainer for a package) the technical committee may decide the matter. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
