Hi Russ (2022.08.30_02:55:11_+)
> Also, if the 3:1 majority option doesn't pass but a 1:1 option that
> doesn't require a supermajority does pass, that's also useful
> information. (For example, I believe that would imply that such an
> installer has to continue to be labeled as unofficial and
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original
> proposal.
>
> I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce
> two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the
> later
El 29/08/22 a las 09:06, Simon Josefsson escribió:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
> >> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That
> >
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> So, I propose the following:
>
> =
>
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> media (installer images and live image
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 05:50:17PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> So, I propose the following:
>>
>> =
>>
>> We will include non-free firmware packages from the
>> "non-free-firmware" section of the De
Antoine Beaupré dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:33:15AM -0400]:
> > Since I started talking about this, Ansgar has already added dak
> > support for a new, separate non-free-firmware component - see
> > [4]. This makes part of my original proposal moot! More work is needed
> > yet to make use of this
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:38:13PM -0700]:
> > If it does not require the explicit approval of the sponsors, yes, I
> > agree this text clarifies and makes better the text I proposed.
>
> I'm not Kurt, but I think A.1.3 applies here:
>
> The proposer of a ballot option may ame
Stefano Rivera writes:
> Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> interpretation.
> I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is
> because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
> Social Contract to explain how our non-free
Russ Allbery dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:41:59AM -0700]:
> 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
Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:00:40PM +0200]:
> > > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they
> > > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not
> > > require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide
> > > not to inc
Quoting Russ Allbery (2022-08-31 18:27:07)
> Stefano Rivera writes:
>
> > Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> > interpretation.
>
> > I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA. This is
> > because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> Can you elaborate on how you support including non-free firmware in the
> installer *and* find the quoted paragraphs in conflict?
I believe our Social Contract ideally should change. I would not want to
indiscriminately add more non-free software (even drivers are iff
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:06:38AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ==
>
> We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
> which says:
>
>Debian will remain 100% free
>
>We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
>"free" in th
On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 11:19 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> However, just pushing a not-well-thought-idea: Would dak, apt, or any
> other bit of our infrastructure be very angry if non-free-firmware
> were to be not an additional component, but a strict subset of
> non-free?
>
> That is, all packages
14 matches
Mail list logo