On Friday, March 2, 2018 11:07:39 PM CST Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, March 02, 2018 09:44:04 PM Steve Robbins wrote: > > On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:15:08 AM CST Ian Jackson wrote: > > > But when a submitter disagrees with a REJECT, and asks for a review, > > > IMO submitter is entitled to a longer explanation, and there should > > > explicitly be an opportunity for other ftpmasters to agree or dissent. > > > > That would be nice. I'm still waiting for clarity about the Boost > > rejection. > > This is my fault. I had planned (and still do) on working on getting some > clarification around the copyright notification issue. Unfortunately, I've > gotten distracted by a few other things, but I still plan on working on it. Well, I don't think it is your fault. I myself have several times sat down to write a follow-up -- with an actual proposal, not just complaining :-) -- but also got distracted. We're all busy. But I am heartened to hear that you are working on it. And I welcome the recent proposals by Ian and by Gert. To me, one of the puzzling aspects is why the FTP policy work has been so secretive. The release team has a mailing list, tech committee has a mailing list. There is Debian Policy list. It doesn't seem in congruence that the ftp team is making their policy behind closed doors. Should it not flow from Debian Policy and be debated on open lists? Or maybe it is all open and I simply haven't found it. If so, I would gratefully accept pointers. Concretely: where would one find the deliberations behind https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html ? -Steve P.S. If I didn't strike the right tone in this email, then I do apologise. It is honestly not intended to be antagonistic, though I admit it does sound a bit whiny.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.