Sorry, guys; because 109436 was archived, this mail got dropped on the
floor.
Here's a lot more context for my control message sent last night.
----- Forwarded message from Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> -----
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: 109436@bugs.debian.org
Subject: old, ignored Technical Committee ruling on #109436
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:12:17 -0500
Message-ID: <20020619051217.GC14623@deadbeast.net>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
I have reopened this bug for two reasons:
1) As I understand it, the Technical Committee's ruling was to let stand
the archive administrators' decision, but to also require them to
document their undocumented requirement that .orig.tar.gz files in the
archive never change their MD5 checksums. The archive team has never
done so to my knowledge, now over 9 months after the Technical
Committee's ruling, and Anthony Towns closed this bug in March,
asserting that it "wasn't an ftp.debian.org" bug. However, Raul Miller,
a member of the Technical Committee who apparently was acting in
accordance with the Committee's ruling, explicitly reassigned the bug to
ftp.debian.org to carry out the task assigned to them.
Because this task was never carried out, the bug should be reopened.
However:
2) I have also reassigned the bug to the Technical Committee because it
is difficult for me to firmly establish the assertions I have made above
the Technical Committee's ruling. I am drawing on recollection and
inference from the discussion thread on the debian-ctte mailing list in
August of 2001.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/debian-ctte-200108/threads.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/debian-ctte-200109/threads.html
Why am I unable to definitively determine the Technical Committee's
ruling?
Because the Technical Committee never publicly announced its decision as
required by clause 6.3.3 of the Constitution:
Public discussion and decision-making.
Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members of
the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public
discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the Committee.
I request that the Technical Committee formalize their informal ruling
of August 2001 regarding Bug#109436, specify the documentation
requirements they are making of the archive administration team, and
attempt to ensure that the archive administration team actually carries
out the decision of the Technical Committee instead of ignoring it and
closing the bug.
Thanks for your attention.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought
Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if
branden@debian.org | you're doing it right."
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen
----- End forwarded message -----
--
G. Branden Robinson | Never attribute to malice that
Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained
branden@deadbeast.net | by stupidity.
http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpmnu55fFz4n.pgp
Description: PGP signature