[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

[self-followup to add some information and make a correction]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:10:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You did not use the words "delegate" or "official", nor anything synonymous
> as far as I can tell, in your reply to Mr. Quinlan.

Sorry, I meant to rewrite this paragraph but forgot to.

You did use the word "delegate" elsewhere in the discussion, to communicate
the fact that you didn't see an immediate need for one.

>   Yes, which is also why I'm relucant to appoint one delegate for this
>   right now.  It would be good if a group of people would do it and after a
>   few months we see automatically who the people are who are doing it
>   regularly.[9]

...for example.  More context is available in my previous message.

> Instead, at the end of the message, you emphasized that you would not be
> taking immediate action:
>   I'd like to hear what other people from -legal think.  I'm certainly
>   not going to appoint anyone without the consent of -legal since this
>   is just not the way it can work.  But perhaps we can find a solution
>   together.

I continue to not be sure what the above means, exactly.  You're on the
record as saying that you feel formal delegation "is against the way Debian

The context of the discussion was formal delegation status, however, as the
existing ad-hoc approach of debian-legal discussion had come under
critique.  So I'm not sure if you were saying you'd "appoint" someone in an
informal capacity, or make a departure from your "pragmatic approach" (as
you put it) by naming an official delegate.

Could you clarify this for us?

> > you told me that this is not the task of -legal.
> I did?  Where did I do that?  Not only did I not reply to your messages to
> debian-legal in that thread[5], I didn't post to the thread at all.  (It
> seemed to be doing just fine without me.)  In fact, as far as I can
> determine, if you and I have communicated on this subject, we haven't done
> it on the debian-legal mailing list[6].  Of the nine messages you've sent
> me privately this year, none of have been on this subject.

(s/none of/none/)

I forgot to mention that I checked the archives of debian-project and
debian-vote as well.  We've discussed delegation in general terms, but not
this specific issue.  There was no DPL candidates' debate this year, so
that's ruled out as well.

Maybe your regex skills are better than mine.

> So that you'll surmise less and understand more about what I think, here's
> my opinion: debian-legal is a discussion list, and that's what it does
> best.  It discusses.  I think that, as DPL, you'd be best advised to draw
> any delegates on licensing issues from the pool of respected participants
> on the debian-legal list; they are more likely to be informed, be
> interested, and have the respect of their peers.

G. Branden Robinson                |     Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;
branden@debian.org                 |        fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck;
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |        umount;sleep

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: