[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>   [me]
> > > Is this intended to bypass the NEW process currently done by ftpmasters
> > > any time something is added to non-free?
> [Robert Millan]
> > ACK about your concerns (and the ones pointed by others, which are roughly
> > the same).  Do you have any suggestion on what would be a better approach?
> Well, unless you explicitly want to undermine the authority of
> ftpmaster over NEW processing, which I do not advise[*], I would say
> "...may be done by any developer, subject to verification by the
> ftpmaster role."

Sounds fine.  Although I would use different wording;  I think the strict
definition of "ftpmaster" doesn't match with "whoever processes NEW".

How about:

  "... may be performed by any of the developers (however, 
  moving packages in distributions other than "unstable" or "experimental" may
  still require approval by the corresponding Release Team and/or by the
  FTP Archive Team)"

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: