Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in
> whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of
> packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been
> maintaining for a few years, or a programming language for which they
> maintain an extraordinary amount of packages and have been helping out
> in shaping a policy for, or some appointed position (as in this case)
> really isn't all that important.
That is a crucial difference between d-l and many other responsibilities
in Debian: ultimately, d-l is only advisory.
> If somebody not involved with the m68k port comes and tells me that
> some decision I made for m68k is all wrong and that I should've done
> this or that instead, I'll have a good laugh. And go on with doing
> whatever I was doing.
> Which, I think, is what the ftp-masters should do to this thread.
That's probably good advice for those of us who contribute to d-l, too.
Except for one thing: if there's significant distrust or antipathy
directed toward d-l it interferes with our ability to give advice on
software freedom issues because people don't listen to us. That,
ultimately, is why I posted my original message.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03