Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit :
> package: tech-ctte
>
> Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request
> CTTE make a formal vote.
The discussion that lead to closing #830978 happened on IRC [0] , see the full
log from line 172 [1] , and Sam put a clear rationale in the mail closing the
bug [2]. I'll quote on specific part of it:
> With regard to the particular issue of Browserified javascript,
> particularly in the libjs-handlebars package, the best way forward is
> for the submitter to discuss the question with the FTP team. Such a
> discussion would be less confusing if it took place after #830986 is
> resolved.
(#830986 isn't resolved)
Now, moving forwards… We decided to close the bug without a formal vote,
because it was clear for all the present TC members that we were in agreement.
We have also agreed (amongst us) to avoid the use of unnecessary bureaucracy
when possible; hence our delegation to close the bug to Sam. Now, the offer to
"repoen the bug and ask for a formal vote" [3] stood to enable anyone to ask
for the bug closure to respect our formal procedures (saying "please don't
close the bug because you think you're in agreement, but run a formal vote").
For what I'm concerned, the situation hasn't evolved, and the conclusion that
Sam outlined still stands (FTP Team is responsible for DFSG, and has decided,
Release Team has decided DFSG is RC and has deferred DFSG-compliance
determination to FTP Team).
I'm therefore putting the following ballot up for discussion within the TC:
==
C: Close 830978 as not being something for the TC to decide
FD: Further Discussion
==
To make things maybe clearer: we have said through the initial bug closure
(and would be reaffirming this) that deciding about DFSG compliance is not for
the TC to decide (we're refusing to rule about something clearly in the FTP
Team's jurisdiction; that is).
You seem to be asking us to decide on DFSG compliance (in place of the FTP
Team); but it's not at all clear that the constitution enables the TC to
override Delegates or decisions made by delegates (see §6.1). We have
recommended you (through Sam's message when closing the bug) to discuss this
question with the FTP Team:
> With regard to the particular issue of Browserified javascript (…) the best
> way forward is for the submitter to discuss the question with the FTP team.
Has this happened? What was the outcome?
(For completeness, if you had discussed with FTP Team, reached a point of
disagreement, noticed that the TC would continue to decline to rule in place
of the FTP Team, your next recourses would be to go through a GR (§4.1.3) to
override the FTP Team's decision on interpreting DFSG for the specific cases
you have in mind; or through amending the DFSG itself (through §4.1.5). )
--
Cheers,
OdyX
[0] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2016/debian-ctte.
2016-07-28-18.00.html
[1] http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2016/debian-ctte.
2016-07-28-18.00.log.html#l-172
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/830978#212 <tsld1lxeep9.fsf@mit.edu>
[3] Which you didn't; you opened a new bug, anyway, let's not nitpick on
details.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.