Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:48:01PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 08:01:02PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
>> I have to admit that I'm a bit curious how you justify needing a 3:1
>> supermajority to update a Packages file, but not to have the software
>> in question served in the first place.
>The basic difference is that in one case it is the result of an unintended
>mistake , and in the other it is the result of known, willfull
>infringement of the Social Contract.
>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).
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews