Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Moin,
> >
> > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
> > > 60 days or more
> >
> > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who determines
> > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be
> > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days
> > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.)
> >
> > But probably thats a minor point too.
>
> Fine with me. What does everyone else think?
>
> In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less concerned
> if the time was increased?
Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180. If someone feels strongly enough
that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of
course.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: