On Jo, 03 feb 22, 18:55:44, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:40:08 PM EST Phil Morrell wrote: > > > > 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. From the outside (non-DD, lurking for 15 years or so) the FTP Team appears to be adamant that the current process is The Only True Way to do copyright review. > If someone thinks that there is a viable alternate method, then they should > demonstrate it. You do not need anyone's permission. Without a clear statement from the FTP Team that alternative copyright review processes might even be considered there is very little motivation for anyone to even start working on it. The start could be something as simple as "we (the FTP Team) will prioritise packages in NEW that have at least $number of reviews from other DDs". Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature