On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:19:18PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy. > > AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy: > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > > > My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is > > not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP > > masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated > > and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the > > FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will > > feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP > > masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a > > policy on the matter. > > I am very happy that the FTP team are making these kind of decisions > for the project. I definitely don't want the DPL to intervene (for > example, by making the FTP team delegation more prescriptive). > > > The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example, > > a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP > > master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial > > content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted. > > This is surely done for convenience, not as a matter of policy. If > you are aware of an instance where a package which has already gone > through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team > would have rejected, you should surely bring this to the FTP team's > attention (probably by filing a bug). > Debian is extremely careful _not_ to censor arbitrarily, though I can remember a couple of discussions of similar issues. From memory only - One was a very long time ago - could be as long ago as 15 years ago - when the lists were spammed by a Finnish neo-Nazi/white supremacist. At the time, thre were lengthy discussions about removing the content - various peole arguing against rewriting history and removing content from the mailing lists - but one of the prime considerations was that the content amounted to illegality in France/Germany/Austria amongst others. Given the UK's current laws - and, not least, the fact that my German isn't good - I'm not going to go anywhere near the content discussed in the discussions around a hypothetical prospective package and so can't comment further on the realities of the issues in the particular case. We do have to be careful that, as a project, we don't expose people to the possibiltiy of legal action because X is fine in Elbonia (but illegal in Ruritania and the territories of the Voivodship of Servia) for example. The great thing about Debian is that, as a community, we are accepting of everyone interested, willing and able to contribute - religion, gender, race, sexuality, financial status are all, pretty much irrelevant: in practice, the main limitation we place is that applicants must, effectively, have a high standard of communication in technical English and the ability to collaborate. All the best, AndyC amacater@galactic.dmeon.co.uk / amacater@debian.org > Ian. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21279.25014.252749.830490@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature