Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations
[Robert Millan]
> Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
> problem in long-term.
Speaking of enforceability --
Your GR will have the effect of removing linux-2.6 from unstable. Only
it won't, because we all know that will not actually happen. Thus the
GR, even if it passes, will be undermined by its own requirements.
Intentionally passing legislation with unenforceable provisions is bad
tactics - the unenforceable bits make it hard for people to take the
enforceable bits seriously.
The only way I can see around that is to grandfather existing DFSG
violations in some way.
My other big philosophical problem with this is that I don't think the
SC should have detailed procedure in it. That is what the Constitution
is for.
Editorial comments:
> Contract shall be ammended as follows:
"amended"
> + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
"Whenever"
> + Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 180 days or more, and
Missing open tags?
> + none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
> + suitable by the maintainers,
Why just the maintainers? What if the tech-ctte is brought in?
> + The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers
Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
any time something is added to non-free? I suspect the ftpmasters will
not be enthusiastic about complying with a GR that requires a mechanism
to bypass the NEW queue. Not to say we can't pass the GR, but I would
much rather see something that does not step on those toes.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Reply to: