Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On 11/03/14 20:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("clarify FTP master delegation?"):
>> The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2]
>>
>> The delegation email is very light, it just says they are "Accepting and
>> rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues" without any
>> reference to the policies they should apply
>
> That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy.
>
>> The wiki talks about their policies (which are well known to most
>> developers), with some comments about the familiar NEW queue:
>
> AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy:
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
Thanks for pointing that out - but that, too, says very little about the
package in question other than possibly: "trying to keep the archive legal"
What is legal in the US (as in free speech) may be banned in the UK or
Australia for example
>> My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is
>> not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP
>> masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated
>> and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the
>> FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will
>> feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP
>> masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a
>> policy on the matter.
>
> I am very happy that the FTP team are making these kind of decisions
> for the project. I definitely don't want the DPL to intervene (for
> example, by making the FTP team delegation more prescriptive).
My email was not a call for the DPL to jump in - the FTP team could
actually suggest something (or maybe just add something extra to that FAQ)
>> The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example,
>> a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP
>> master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial
>> content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted.
>
> This is surely done for convenience, not as a matter of policy. If
> you are aware of an instance where a package which has already gone
> through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team
> would have rejected, you should surely bring this to the FTP team's
> attention (probably by filing a bug).
Well, if the REJECT-FAQ was the criteria that a DD was referring to,
then they may well interpret what is legal in their own personal
location/context and feel entitled to upload it - but it may make Debian
illegal for users and developers in other locations.
Reply to: