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

Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > But if what you're trying to say is that it's not all your fault as
> > Release Team, I acknowledge that.  Then again, it's a really poor
> > excuse to justify missbehaviour because of pre-existing
> > missbehaviour somewhere else.
> Well, it is a poor excuse *if* you consider the Release Team to have
> full responsibility of everything which is released in Debian.

Of course they don't.  But if the release-team tags a DFSG-violation
"lenny-ignore", then they do have responsibility for setting that tag.
The result of that tag is that the known DFSG-violation is willfully
accepted into the release.  The argument is that the RMs shouldn't have
the power to decide that.

Nobody is claiming (AFAIK) that the RMs are responsible for things they
didn't notice.  This is about things they noticed, and actively

> I think it is not the case, they should be held responsible "only"
> (again with double quotes, because AFAICT it is not the
> simplest/funniest job ever) for their decisions about what migrates
> and what doesn't.

Right.  And (the relevant category in this discussion) what is accepted
in the release even though there is an RC bug on it.

> The content which migrates is the main responsibility of the
> maintainer, then (in case of DFSG violations / illegal stuff) also of
> FTP masters.

Yes, but in both those cases problems can happen (and stay) because of
inactivity.  The problem with the final step is that it's active, so we
can't say "sorry, we missed that one".

I'm not saying that maintainers are always doing the right thing, but
they can always claim that they didn't know about it (until a bug is
filed).  That makes that part of the problem a lot harder to fix.

> Can someone explain me why all these threads smell of gratuitous RM
> bashing?

I hope I didn't take part in that.  I'm very happy with the work done by
the RMs.  But that doesn't mean I want to give them the power to
overrule the SC without a GR.


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: