Re: New delegation for DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> We have a, currently unchanged, FTPMaster delegation. Additionally we
> have a DFSG one.
That's not my reading of <aP4BFPFyOC1UPSpH@an3as.eu>:
| From: Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org>
| Subject: New delegation for DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team
| Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 12:10:01 +0100
[...]
| As per Debian Constitution §8, I hereby appoint the following developers
| as members of the DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team ("DFSG Team"):
[...]
| This new team is spun off from the former FTP Master team. With its
| creation, the previous FTP Master delegation is revoked.
and <aP4BH4bM6JoLnDWY@an3as.eu>:
| From: Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org>
| Subject: New delegation for Debian Archive Operations Team
| Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2025 12:10:01 +0100
[...]
| As per Debian Constitution §8, I hereby appoint the following developers
| as members of the Debian Archive Operations Team (in short Archive team):
[...]
| This new team is spun off from the former FTP Master team. With its
| creation, the previous FTP Master delegation is revoked.
AFAICS, the FTP master (team) delegations have been revoked since
2025-10-26, and the FTP masters have been replaced by the "DFSG Team" and
the "Debian Archive Operations Team", both teams initially consisting of
the former FTP masters. After that, the delegation of the "DFSG Team" has
been revoked and replaced by a new team.
> There is a draft for an archive teams delegation. That is not, to my
> knowledge, sent or in effect, yet.
It has been sent in parallel to the first "DFSG Team" delegation.
In summary, the former FTP masters are now the "Debian Archive Operations
Team" - or so it seems to after following
<debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org>. But I'm not a Debian member and
so just watching from the sidelines (and have no idea what's going on
behind the scenes).
> Ansgar wanted out, the rest of the FTPMasters got kicked out of the DFSG
> teams work area. The FTPTeam members (that aren't also FTPMaster) did
> not get considered (or asked) at all.
>From the outside, it looks a bit like a mess.
-thh
Reply to: