Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 09:33 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> That's granted, but then it's irrelevant to my point. The job of the
> ftpmasters is mainly:
> - verifying licenses for DFSG compliance
> - maintaining the archive
>
> It has never been a primary task for them to check the quality of software
> that is packaged, except for obvious errors (such as policy-compliance
> one) that they spot while they are doing other tasks. Using the 2.2.1
> criteria of the policy does not qualify as "obvious errors" IMO (otherwise
> we wouldn't be here discussing this).
The way I look at this is that it has not been a primary *expectation*
of the project that the ftpmasters review and approve the quality of the
software that is packaged. The lack of a routine expectation does and
should not prevent them doing it, however.
> Yes. But there are limits on their responsibilities.
> > I think it's reasonable to allow the ftpmasters that discretion, given
> > that they are (a) appointed by the Leader and thus accountable both to
> > the Leader and directly via GR if necessary; (b) also overrideable by
> > the TC.
I'm with Ian on this aspect. We limit our expectations, which sets the
lower bound on what the ftpmasters are expected to do. And we have
checks and balances as a consequence of their delegated status that set
the upper bound on what the ftpmasters should do. In between, we grant
them broad discretion to do their work.
> So Gerrit should contact the leader or try a GR to be able to package
> qmail? I'm not sure that's the proper way either.
It certainly doesn't seem like a reasonable response given the obvious
alternative of working on the issues identified to improve the software.
Bdale
Reply to: