On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:17:29AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:59:51PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > Am Mi, den 28.01.2004 schrieb Branden Robinson um 19:04: > > > > whether any sort of sanction should > > > > take place as a result of these actions, and what standards of procedure > > > > and courtesy we should have in team-maintained packages. > > > > > > In my opinion, and especially as this kind of thing has happened for the > > > first time, there should be no sanction to dstone. If he has lost the > > > XSF's trust, then thats their internal thing to decide - debian as a > > > whole should not. (Not more than his may-be lowered reputation within > > > debian - thats up to every single DD). > > > > This is not and has not been our policy in the past. Consult the > > debian-private archives from 2000, starting in April, at the thread > > subject "Suspension" > > That's a different matter whatsoever. We are talking about package > maintenance here, which is what being in Debian is all about. Violating > the DMUP is something completely different than doing something WRT > package management which is not in the Developers Reference. None of which is relevant. The argument advanced was "trust to upload packages (be a developer) is not affected by trust in other matters". Historically, trust in general *has* been a significant factor. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature