Re: clarify FTP master delegation?
On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
>> There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP
>> masters will accept a particular package
> For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on #283578, and associated mails to the lists, LWN articles etc around the time.
>
> Neil
> [0] Or don’t. It’s probably better to do something more useful with your time.
>
283578 is far less controversial
It was rejected softly using some very generic reasons
The more controversial package being discussed now probably needs to be
rejected more emphatically (and not simply using some technicality)
In case it wasn't clear, my original email wasn't about restricting the
powers of the FTP masters in this situation, rather it was about Debian
asserting (either through FTP master policy or FTP delegation or
whatever) the rejection of the type of content that is now up for
discussion, whether it appears in NEW, as a subsequent update to any
existing package or whatever.
People are welcome to discuss this type of thing objectively on the
email lists of course (that is free speech) but it probably needs to be
clear that as a long-lived and widely used distribution, there is some
written line in the sand about this type of content that we can refer to
if it ever comes up as a hypothetical discussion again.
Reply to: