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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?

On Mon, Oct 20 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:

> For me, believe it or not, it's very important not to betray the rest of
> developers with the actions I take in my role as a release person. Which
> is *not* to say I won't take any actions that makes feel one particular
> developer betrayed. But I do try to listen to what people have to say
> about how we release, I really do.

        But developers are not the only infliences on your decision. You
 have agreed to abide by the social contract, have you not? That, too,
 should dictate how you act within your delegated role. 

> In the case at hand, I can clearly see some people feel betrayed, and
> they're in the right to be so (though IMHO they're not in their right
> to speak for the developers at larege). However, and until proven
> wrong, I'm convinced the majority of developers don't feel betrayed by
> these "lenny-ignore" tags. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.

        I have no idea about how betrayal features here: I just believe
 that the decision to ignore these problems in Lenny fall beyond the
 powers given to delegates.

        There is nothing to feel betrayed by, all kinds of people make
 all kinds of mistakes, and I do not live in a perpetual feeling of
 victimization or betrayal.

> (If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
> those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
> opposite. In my view, the release takes what is in unstable and tries to
> make something coherent of it. If you are outraged with what's in
> unstable, take it up with the people responsible for it. We just stamp a
> number in certain versions of packages, nothing more. Unstable is also
> "Debian", you know.)

        In other words, if the release team is allowing packages to
 violate the DFSG, one must prove something to the relese team (not sure
 what that is, exactly). Is it in dispute that non-free blobs that
 violate the DFSG actually violate the DFSG?

        Or does the release team need someone to quote the contitution
 and the social contrat to them? (I doubt that is the case, since the
 RM"s are mostly quite competent)

        Are you saying you want the project to show you that the SC is
 still relevant, by passing yet another GR?

        Please pardon my confusion, since you ought to be aware that
 English is not my first (or second) language.

        So, could you explain  your view of the issue here, without
 bringing in feeling of betrayal, which I do not comprehend?

"Survey says..." Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: