Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:35:36PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > > 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".
"... 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)"
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."