Re: Is a different opinion about a license a case for the ctte?
Sam Hartman dijo [Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 09:17:57AM -0600]:
> TL;DR: you don't have any recourse that is appropriate for this
> All the hammers are bigger than your nail.
Well, hammers usually _are_ bigger than nails, otherwise... ;-)
> The secretary ruled that the CT cannover overrule a delegate acting in
> their delegated responsibility,
> so no the CT cannot overrule ftpmaster.
Thanks for bringing this ruling up, Sam. Usually we do feel required
to answer to any questions brought up to us, although we have often
"decided not to take action" (or decided not to rule, but explicitly)
in the past.
> The CT could give advice to ftpmaster, especially if ftpmaster requested
> that advice.
> I'd expect the CT would be reluctant to give non-technical advice.
> The CT could set *technical policy* and I'd expect delegates would
> generally be expected to follow reasonable technical policy established
> by the CT or be accountable to the DPL and membership at large.
> However, I don't really think that license standards are technical
> enough to be technical policy.
> ftpmaster could establish an appeals procedure.
Yes, that was more or less my line of thought upon first reading
Andreas' mail. I do not think licensing advice is the kind of advice
the TC is supposed to give. We do have a delegated body whose
authority is acknowledged by the whole project. And although we could
advice them to act differently, they can decide to ignore our
advice. So, if a licensing disagreement came up, the only real
resource IMO would be a GR. And I feel that would be too much for the
simple case you are presenting here.