FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR THE Lenny Release General Resolution
===== ==== === ===== === === ===== ======= ======= ==========
Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, December 14th, 2008
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, December 21st, 2008
This ballot is for a vote being conducted as required by the Debian
Constitution. You may see the constitution at
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact
secretary@debian.org.
Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a mail to
ballot@vote.debian.org
with the subject "gr_lenny".
HOW TO VOTE
First, read the full text of the various proposals.
To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form
(which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated
e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below. The dedicated
email address this ballot should be sent to is:
gr_lenny@vote.debian.org
The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.
There are 7 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 7. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 7.
You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.
Make sure you have read the proposals in detail.
To vote "no, no matter what", rank "Further Discussion" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "Further Discussion"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. (Note: if the
"Further Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"Further Discussion" choice by the voting software).
Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: gr_lenny@vote.debian.org.
Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.
NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that
either contains only an unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant),
or a PGP/MIME mail (RFC 3156 compliant). You may, if you wish, choose to
send a signed, encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for
encryption.
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242
[ ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
[ ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
[ ] Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations [3:1]
[ ] Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1]
[ ] Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
[ ] Choice 6: Exclude source requirements for firmware (defined) [3:1]
[ ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The actual text of the various options are as follows. Please note
that this does not include preludes, prologues, any preambles to the
resolution, post-ambles to the resolutions, abstracts, fore-words,
after-words, rationales, supporting documents, opinion polls,
arguments for and against, and any of the other important material you
will find on the mailing list archives. Please read the debian-vote
mailing list archives for details.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
========= ======== === ====== ========
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that we promised to deliver a 100% free operating
system (Social Contract #1);
3. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress
has been made, and we are almost to the point where we can
provide a free version of the Debian operating system, we will
delay the release of Lenny until such point that the work to
free the operating system is complete (to the best of our
knowledge as of 1 November 2008).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware [3:1]
====== == ===== ===== == ======= ==== =========== ======== =====
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
firmware issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the
time of the last stable release have been sorted out. However,
new issues in the kernel sources have cropped up fairly
recently, and these new issues have not yet been addressed;
3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally
allowed to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 3: Allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations [3:1]
====== == ===== ===== == ======= ==== ==== ========== =====
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
firmware issue; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;
3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
sourceless firmware as a best-effort process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1]
====== == ======= === ======= ==== == ====== ===== ======== ==== ========== ====
1. Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't
trade them against each other. However, while getting a release
out of the door, decisions need to be made about how to get a
rock-stable release of the high quality Debian is known for,
release more or less on time, and to minimize the usage of
problematic software. We acknowledge that there is more than
just one minefield our core developers and the release team are
working on.
2. We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to
follow all these goals, and therefore encourage them to continue
making case-by-case decisions as they consider fit, and if
necessary we authorize these decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free
software community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel
firmware issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the
time of the last stable release have been sorted out. However,
new issues in the kernel sources have cropped up fairly
recently, and these new issues have not yet been addressed;
3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our
knowledge as of 1 November 2008);
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting
every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of
sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver
firmware as part of Debian Lenny as long as we are legally
allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under
a license that complies with the DFSG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice 6: Exclude source requirements for firmware (defined) [3:1]
Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded
into hardware components in order to make the component function
properly. It is not code that is run on the host CPU.
Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as so-called blobs,
with no source or further documentation that lets us learn how it
works or interacts with the hardware in question. By excluding such
firmware from Debian we exclude users that require such devices from
installing our operating system, or make it unnecessarily hard for
them.
1. firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we
do prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we
will not require it,
2. we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate
from components of our operating system, and
3. such firmware can and should be part of our official
installation media.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
--
In an orderly world, there's always a place for the disorderly.
Debian Project Secretary <secretary@debian.org>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-14-2008, 08:58 AM
Bastian Venthur
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
Cheers,
Bastian
Debian Project Secretary schrieb:
[...]
--
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Pierre Habouzit
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +0000, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1]
> ====== == ======= === ======= ==== == ====== ===== ======== ==== ========== ====
Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
by the § about delegates in the constitution. "Delegates shall take
decision they see fit". What should be [3:1] is to dis-empower them from
having such rights.
And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
I would be surprised other people don't think the same.
E.g. How can I decide 2 _and_ 4 ? Does the rule change ? Does any
resolution that wins overs Further Discussion will be validated ?
Because unless I'm mistaken, 2 doesn't imply 4, so if 2 wins, 4 is
invalidated.
This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
12-14-2008, 10:49 AM
"Paul Wise"
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Choice 5: Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise
>
> Why GPL ? Why not BSD ? Why not "DFSG" ?
I believe this is because the GPL requires source code to be
distributed and therefore for the kernel to be distributable with
embedded binary firmware, we have to assume that the "source code" of
the firmware is the firmware itself. This makes it explicit that we
consider binary blobs to be "source code" until proven otherwise.
> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
> I would be surprised other people don't think the same.
Agreed;
I don't understand why #3 is on the ballot since the text talks about
the kernel/firmware only (while the title is more general).
The text for #5 doesn't seem to match the title.
> This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
I plan to do something similar.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
Stefano Zacchiroli
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
> if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
>
> Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
12-14-2008, 05:55 PM
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken this shouldn't be [3:1] as it's specifically allowed
> by the § about delegates in the constitution. "Delegates shall take
> decision they see fit". What should be [3:1] is to dis-empower them from
> having such rights.
You are mistaken
Your quote comes from Section 8.3 "Procedure". Its meaning is that the
constitution specifically does not require the delegates to follow a particular
procedure to reach their decisions. It does not talk about what authority the
delegates have (that is discussed in Section 8.1 "Powers").
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
12-14-2008, 06:50 PM
Bastian Venthur
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Stefano Zacchiroli schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Why is this important mail hidden in -devel? I wouldn't have noticed it
>> if I hadn't read something about this on planet-debian.
>>
>> Shouldn't such important mails about voting go to -announce?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/12/msg00005.html
>
... appeared there roughly 30 mins after my question. Given the
controversy of this GR and the short voting period, I hope this was just
a mistake.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-14-2008, 06:58 PM
Russ Allbery
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
> This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG issues resolved
before we release lenny. That's what the original proposal is attempting
to accomplish, and since the secretary's rulings support their position,
it only needs a simple majority. All options that lead to a release of
lenny without resolving all issues first (other than FD) require a 3:1
majority.
FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means
that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of
lenny proceeds.
> I believe this is because the GPL requires source code to be
> distributed and therefore for the kernel to be distributable with
> embedded binary firmware, we have to assume that the "source code" of
> the firmware is the firmware itself. This makes it explicit that we
> consider binary blobs to be "source code" until proven otherwise.
No; it's because Manoj in his dual role as proposer and secretary has
imposed an incorrect title for that ballot option that does not match the
text of the ballot option, over various objections.
> > This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> > or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
> I plan to do something similar.
Boycotting is unlikely to prevent all ballot options from reaching the
quorum requirements, and given the inconsistent application of supermajority
requirements by the secretary it is possible that the vote outcome, as
determined by the secretary, will not match what the outcome would have been
on the same ballot with consistent supermajority requirements.
The only way to avoid this is by exercising your franchise and voting your
preference. If that means voting FD first in your case, that's reasonable,
but unless you're equally happy to see any of the proposed GRs pass, please
take the time to understand and rank the other ballot options. Condorcet is
a nice voting system, but it can't prevent undesired outcomes caused by
voter apathy and low voter turnout.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
12-14-2008, 07:19 PM
Andreas Barth
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [081214 20:42]:
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
>
> > This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first
> > or to boycott it. This is a practical joke.
>
> Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot
> and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG issues resolved
> before we release lenny. That's what the original proposal is attempting
> to accomplish, and since the secretary's rulings support their position,
> it only needs a simple majority. All options that lead to a release of
> lenny without resolving all issues first (other than FD) require a 3:1
> majority.
>
> FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means
> that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of
> lenny proceeds.
Though I agree with that, voting for option 4 is even more explicit (and nobody
can disagree what *that* one means), so voting for option 4 as preferred option,
and further discussion below (and option 1 as least desirable) is a more
certain way to achive that.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
