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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations



On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:15:55PM +0000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 
> 
> > And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW
> > then ? I don't really see the difference.
> 
>         I would be uncomoftable with ftp-masters willfully allowing DFSG
>  violations in main without ratification from the project as a whole as
>  well.

I have no evidence they do, my point is they have the same power, and if
they do, it's silent. When a RM choses to ignore a bug it's completely
non-silent and easy to post-check[0].

Though technically, as every new kernel goes through NEW, they *did*.
They willfully allowed DFSG violations last time they accepted a kernel
(some of the bugs on firmwares predate the last passage through NEW I
think).

> > BUt yeah, tagging bugs lenny-ignore is part of the RM tasks, and we're
> > delegated for that (among other things).
> 
>         Every developer has the right to manage their own bugs too. But
>  they do not have the right to just downgrade or close bugs saying that
>  their package has a DFSG violation. I think the same principle applies
>  here.

At some point, someone has to decide. Doing a vote for each is
impractical. As our choice is _not_ silent, if someones (like usually
the reporter who _sees_ such tags happen) disagree, he can raise a
discussion. AFAICT it's what is happening currently, and it shows that
the system is sane and works. At some point if we want to scale, we have
to delegate, and it's just that.


  [0] http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lenny-ignore
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpAIWL7qzErJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: