On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > If the project doesn't have a clear consensus that a newly reverted SC > > should be interpreted differently to the current SC [...], then the > > tech ctte will still need to decide the issue on the project's behalf, > > presumably. I certainly will not. > Uh? May I change one word in this sentence? First line: > | If the project doesn't have a clear consensus that a newly changed SC > | should be interpreted differently to the current SC [...], then the > | tech ctte will still need to decide the issue on the project's behalf, > | presumably. I certainly will not. > Then why did you decide this for the last changes: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html Because that's what I thought was the obvious intent of the change -- as was discussed on -vote back in January. I still believe that's the case; and I still think that delegates and maintainers are the appropriate folks to be making these decisions, and the tech ctte and GR processes are the appropriate ways to review and overrule those decisions. Given the vicious backlash that's resulted though, I'm not remotely willing to take any further responsibility for resolving this situation, which means if the project decides that the policy on this issue should be made by the RM, the tech ctte or someone else will need to make it. I've had more than enough attacks over this issue, I'm not going to accept any more. If you're not happy with the way things are at the moment -- which is that non-DFSG-free docs are a social contract violation, and that we won't knowingly violate the social contract in stable releases -- then fix it yourself. If you are happy with it -- and given the proposer of the "editorial GR" has subsequently proposed a GR to ensure that the situation remains as is , he seems to be -- then stop complaining. > You said in this mail that the Technical Committee could overrule you - > but that implies that you make the decision in the first place. I subsequently delegated the decision to the tech ctte -- they can now decide on whatever release policy they think is appropriate in their own right, without needing to overrule anyone. See either the mail to -private or presumably one of the ones to -ctte. Nevertheless, as things stand the decision is made; unless _something_ changes, sarge won't release with DFSG-free docs. At present, though, very little is being done to follow through on that. No doubt some will claim that's a social contract violation too, and blame me for that, as well. Whatthefuckever. Cheers, aj  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00096.html Described on IRC as: <asuffield> I guess I ought to write a variant that says "don't release sarge until it's free" <asuffield> <sigh> yet more work <hmakholm> asuffield: Wouldn't that be observationally equivalent to "more discussion"? <asuffield> hmakholm: no, it's closer to "fuck off aj" <jvw> asuffield: Something like Option F on my proposal? -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature