On Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:40:08 PM EST Phil Morrell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:43:16AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I am a member of the FTP Team and have been participating, at least a bit, > > in this thread. I am not, however, speaking for the team. > > Hello Scott, thank you for taking the time to follow this thread, there > are two very specific questions outstanding that those outside the FTP > team would like an answer to - if you're not willing to speak for the > team on these then please can you encourage internal discussion and > announcement of the team's opinion. > > 1. Is it ftpmaster's opinion and policy that there is no difference in > NEW queue review process between bin and src? > Namely that a full copyright review is necessary to catch the kind of > issues you noticed and so it is unhelpful to ping a mention on e.g. IRC > that something only needs a lighter review. > Alternatively, is it true that bin-NEW is primarily about > non-copyright checks and only if something looks egregiously wrong it > becomes subject to a full review which may take more time. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00226.html > > > I would certainly not support the notion that we have too few licensing > > documentation bugs in the archive and we can afford to dismantle the one > > process we have in place that actually makes a difference in this area. > > That is not the challenge being made here. I don't believe anyone is > arguing that licensing documentation bugs would be anything other than > RC bugs according to policy §2.3, just that NEW processing is not the > only possible mitigation for the Debian project's legal risk. Right, but my point is that anyone who wants to work on identifying licensing and copyright documentation issues in the archive is free to do so today. Anyone can file them and, given appropriate deference to the NMU procedures, anyone can fix them. Nothing the FTP Team is doing or not doing prevents that. If someone thinks that there is a viable alternate method, then they should demonstrate it. You do not need anyone's permission. > 2. Is the ftpmaster team willing and able to select someone to represent > the team in a collaboration with non-team members to seek further legal > council on the current NEW copyright practices? > Specifically, to compile a list of questions in advance and join a > call where these questions are put, communicate the results to the team > and obviously have buy-in that any changes needed can be worked with. > As examples, there are doubts over: the "abundance of caution" > approach to avoiding redistribution during the review; the above > mentioned copyright review for bin-NEW; whether RC licensing bugs should > be treated differently to other RC bugs. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00359.html > > I really hope you can help get the answers to these two questions, > because without it there doesn't seem to be a way forward for those with > time available outside the ftpmaster team. I can't really address that, but there are other reasons than legal risks to follow Debian policy. My impression is that people are tired of waiting on New, but no one really seems to be interested in doing any work on any alternative other than more bugs. I'm not sure how a lawyer can tell you how many bugs are acceptable. Scott K P.S. I am subscribed, so no need to cc me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.