On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the > ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the > constitution is not the object of the dispute. > > Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to > > requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that > > agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*. I > Who said anything about the developer's pre-existing views? of course the > ctte can't be bound by that, it wouldn't be able to do its job otherwise. > I *specifically* talked about project-wide policy, as in that set by GRs, > the SC, the DFSG, the constitution and whatever else we have that sets > policy (and I am *NOT* talking about the Debian policy document, btw). Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract mandates that the Debian system not require the use of non-free components, but it doesn't go into any detail -- the distinction between "main", "contrib", and "non-free" is only specified in Debian's technical policy. It is this latter that we have been asked to rule on -- to "interpret the interpretation", so to speak. If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections, or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be inappropriate for the TC to overrule another developer's understanding of the Social Contract; a matter such as that ought to be settled by GR instead. But that's not the question that has been put before us. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature