Hi
As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
firmware. Users and press are complaining that their servers don't have
network anymore after an upgrade or that their notebooks cannot be
installed vi
This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes said:
> What do people think of a new vote regarding the status of firmware?
Much as I'm not totally ready to watch/have this argument again so soon,
I thank you for bringing it up early in the release cycle. I'd personally
like to put this one to bed one wa
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:48:58AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> What do people think of a new vote regarding the status of firmware?
> One of the options can probably be Peter Palfrader's proposal [1].
I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle,
and I was pondering about pr
Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle,
Hi all,
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, May 01, 2009 at 01:58:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
I'm very much in favor of having this vote early in the release cycle,
Hi all,
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm2
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
>>
>> There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
>> unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg3.html
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx),
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:20:21PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Continuing discussions about the supermajority requirements before
> going to the firmware is probably not a bad idea.
I see the point of asking the supermajority vote to be dealt with
before voting on firmware.
However, I don't see it
Hi
There seem to be some disagreements about the terms in the subject. As
far as I'm concerned it's pretty clear though and would not need any
vote to clarify:
Overriding is only used in combination with decisions. You cannot
override a document or its interpretation/meaning. You can only ov
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
> secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
> majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
> supermajority, it would be pointless to delay the vote on the b
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
> foundation document.
[...]
> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> disagrees with above interpretati
On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 13:58 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:48:58AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > What do people think of a new vote regarding the status of firmware?
> > One of the options can probably be Peter Palfrader's proposal [1].
>
> I'm very much in favor of ha
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
> > disagrees with above interpretations?
>
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, the
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri May 01 11:56, Don Armstrong wrote:
So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
disagrees with above interpretations?
The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
constit
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
> secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
> majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
> supermajority, it
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
there is an option for e
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>> foundation document.
>
> [...]
>
>> So I don't really see what we should vote
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
For instance, it would be very useful to know whether the current
secretary would consider Peter's proposal on firmware to require super
majority or not. If the secretary does _not_ think it will imply
superma
Matthew Johnson wrote:
As suggested [0] I think we should clarify these issues before any other
votes. As such I'd like to suggest a draft for the vote.
I'm proposing several options for a couple of reasons. Several of them I
would rank above further discussion, but I also want to make sure that
Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi
>
> As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
> press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
> firmware. Users and press are complaining that their servers don't have
> network anymore after an upgrade or that their not
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
foundation document.
[...]
So I don't really see what we s
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document
> (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you
> saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
> around by putting out a position statement, and hav
On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
> I think trying to propose many options together is very wrong as you are
> very probably not objective for all the options nor will you be able to
> word it properly for the ones that do care about an option you don't really
> care about.
I would vote all
On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
statement in conflict with an FD) means that we ha
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
> I think Manoj's point is that if voting som
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
> Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
> reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundati
On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
>> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped agai
On Fri, May 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
>
> Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to
uphold the social
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Joey Schulze wrote:
> I would rather like to keep binary firmware blobs outside of Debian/main
> and maintain them in Debian/non-free with improved and easy ways to load
> them during the installation.
This is what appears to be happening in Linux upstream, so thi
Don Armstrong writes:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
> >
> > Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
>
> It really shouldn't; as a group we decide wh
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:10:26AM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> Luk Claes wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > As probably many of you know, the most heard criticism from users and
> > press on Lenny's release is lost hardware support because of missing
> > firmware. Users and press are complaining that their
32 matches
Mail list logo
