[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: clarify FTP master delegation?



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 through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team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


Reply to: