Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:06:36PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > It is in fact so clear, that we have a state in the BTS for bugs that are
> > known to violate the DFSG and nevertheless intentionally ignored by the
> > Release Team ("lenny-ignore" tag).
> Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
> used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
> violations or not apart from bug severities),
What you say is right. And when bugs with 'lenny-ignore' tag are also DFSG
violations, the result is an explicit dismissal of such violations.
If the Release Team never intended to dismiss DFSG violations, I can give you
a list of bugs where I believe the 'lenny-ignore' tag should be removed, and
if that is done, I will stand corrected.
> >  e.g. FTP masters not finding a specific violation during routine
> > inspection , or package maintainers uploading new upstream
> > versions that introduce new violations.
> How can you be so sure it's also not 'ignoring' on their side? It looks
> very much that you just want to attack the release team and don't want
> to be constructive?
I *am* being constructive. I *do* understand that it is extremely annoying
for those working hard on the release that this kind of problems threaten to
undermine your effort. This is why my GR proposal includes options that allow
for a scape route, in case you manage to convince the project that it is
reasonable to use it.
But, at the same time, I don't think the Release Team should be allowed to
make this kind of decisions unilaterally.
> Sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but I'm sick of all these
> false allegations.
On the contrary, your message was more respectful than many of the responses I
have received in the last few days.
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."