On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 01:09:13PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:35:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > debian-legal is an undelegated advisory body. Ultimately, the final > > > decision lies with the archive maintainers. > > > > I see. Where are the archive maintainers' official delegations? > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/05/msg00005.html > > IIRC, Martin mentioned this the last time you asked about delegations, > too. I don't see any delegations of archive administrators in that message. The last time I asked about delegations, six months later Martin replied and said he thought official delegation processes were "against the way Debian works"[1]. Okay, fair enough. Archive administration is done by those who roll up their sleeves and do it -- the people on other end of <ftpmaster@debian.org>. By the same token, public DFSG-based analysis of licenses and how they are applied to the works we ship is done by those who roll up their sleeves and do it -- the debian-legal mailing list. I fail to see why debian-legal's "undelegated" status is at all relevant given our current leadership philsophy. Martin's mail[1] is well worth reviewing; if people are unhappy with the way the folks on debian-legal are analyzing licenses, they should to come forward and propose alternatives. It's not as if the way debian-legal really works is hidden from view, so anyone who bothers to actually read the list traffic is in a good position to make informed recommendations. Debian-legal's DFSG analyses are among the most transparent processes we have. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/11/msg00041.html -- G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. branden@debian.org | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature