Vancouver prpopsal (was Re: Canonical and Debian)
In article <[🔎] 20050606141347.GB24212@saruman.uio.no> email@example.com writes:
>> However that won't help the architecture make it to a Vancouver-like
>I suspect you have misunderstood the content and intention of the
>proposal from the group meeting in Vancover.
The intent was not at all that clear.
The content made it quite clear that under those rules many
architectures could not ever be in any future stable release of
Debian. No amount of work by the porting team could ever get the
situation changed without active support of people who are either
apithetic about the architecture or activly hostile to it. The
proposal gives veto power over getting an architecture in Debian to
dozens of people, and all they need do to exersize it is to not fix a
non-release-critical bug. In addtion, the DSA, buildd, security, and
release teams all have veto power.
Blars Blarson firstname.lastname@example.org
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.