Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Stefano Rivera
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Wouter Verhelst
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Santiago Ruano Rincón
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 > >

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Bart Martens
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Steve McIntyre
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Gunnar Wolf
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Russ Allbery
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Shengjing Zhu
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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

2022-08-31 Thread Paul Wise
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