Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening)

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you.
When this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice.

The advice I wanted to issue isn't the advice you wished we issued, but
it would have at least been advice.

However, I was the only one on the TC who wanted to touch the issue.
It was quite clear from the IRC meeting that  I didn't have the support.
I think the TC did reach a consensus not to touch the general question
and give advice there.


I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG
free.
I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the
situation was improved.
I thought it was clear we believed perl had a DFSG issue, although IRC
discussion today makes that less clear.
I don't think the value of having the TC formally say any of those
specific things is very high.

I don't think having a formal vote to confirm the TC consensus to say
nothing does much
good.
I do think such an outcome would accurately represent the current
thinking of the TC as a body.
I haven't seen anyone who has reviewed the log claim otherwise.


I also don't think asking for a formal vote in a situation where there
is a clear consensus is the right way to ask someone to change their
mind.
I think the TC is making the wrong call here.
So do you.



I guess I don't mind that you're bringing that up again.  I'll be
delighted if it changes peoples' minds.

I don't entirely know what I'm saying.  Perhaps just expressing
disappointment in this overall process.

--Sam