On 27 May 2005 09:31:37 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? > > Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional > > delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy > > about it all. > > I agree with the first three lines: debian-legal is an advisory > group, although currently endorsed by debian policy. It is > not a delegate and has no decision-making power. The last > DPL discussed making delegates, I think, but didn't. That's right, I apologize for using misleading words (being an English native speaker would have helped here, but I'm not!). When I said "they delegate to debian-legal partecipants" I didn't mean that they delegate the decision-making (that is to say "this package belongs in main, that other one belongs in non-free, and so forth"): that is indeed up to the ftpmasters to decide. What I meant was that they delegate the /legal analysis and discussion/; they delegate the /advisory role/. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpGbOE0mMrnK.pgp
Description: PGP signature