On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 09:00:07AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > While I agree with Stefano's later followup that GR's are not good tools > for building concensus, I'm not sure such policy decision is really in > the spirit of the FTP master delegation. I recognize that my skepticism > is influenced by the fact that I would consider following the proposed > "OSAID" model to be a substantial weakening of the DFSG. But who's saying that Debian will follow OSAID? Historically, it is OSI that has followed Debian, not the other way around. And the only mention of "open source" in our founding documents is to point out that the OSD was based on the DFSG; everything else is about "free software". AFAICT OSI decisions do not influence Debian policies in any way. Re: GR, I'd be totally fine with one. (And I'd personally vote in favor of a text that states that Debian-acceptable ML models should come with DFSG-compliant training datasets.) I just not want to use the GR tool as a hammer against a delegated team if no override is needed. I don't understand your argument that this decision is not in the realm of the ftpmaster activities. How could it *not* be, given they are the team deciding NEW queue acceptance, and that most notably they do so based on licensing aspects? Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . https://upsilon.cc/zack _. ^ ._ Full professor of Computer Science o o o \/|V|\/ Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris o o o </> <\> Co-founder & CSO Software Heritage o o o o /\|^|/\ Mastodon: https://mastodon.xyz/@zacchiro '" V "'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature