Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Sure they do:
> > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority).
> > The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular
> > technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to;
> > this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may
> > determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is
> > justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be
> > implemented.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:17:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical
> matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution). But on
> re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my
> reading is by no means the only one of the text.
> So, Technical Committee, what say you? Would you entertain such
Caveats: I'm not the technical committee, and this isn't the mailing
list for the technical committee. [The technical committee reaches
its decisions by voting, but debian-vote is for GRs, not committee
decisions]. Also, the consitutional interpretation which the committee
decides on could be overruled by the Project Secretary [who might be
heavily influenced by the opinion of the author of the constitution].
With those cautions in mind: Of course we would.
We've dealt with analogous issues in the past. Ben Collins got the
committee involved in his "crypto in main" document, when he was leader,
There's a flip side of course (would the committee agree with you on
what you propose? which mostly relates back to: did you consider all
the important issues?), but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking.
As a final note: if you want to release some free package in main, which
depends on some package which has a DFSG license but is in non-free
rather than main, I can't think of any reason we wouldn't support you
in getting that other package into main.