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

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

>> I thought FD was also a vote for "release Lenny" given it didn't change
>> the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to
>> release...
> If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny
> with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would
> seem accurate.

For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can
misjudge it...

The release team has the authority to release Lenny. At whatever point
they wish and feel good with it. They provide a list of what criteria
need to be met for that. For the package contents of that release, they
take whatever we, all the maintainers uploading packages, and what we,
the ftpmasters, put into the archive.

Now, if one dislikes a decision of a delegate, one can run a GR
against it. Somehow we just had one, and the outcome does say they can
release with the kernel that is currently in Lenny. Like it or not, but
thats the option that won, no matter how fucked up the ballot may have
been. Dislike this outcome? Do Debian a bad service and run yet another
GR against Lenny. Or, to have something new, do such things right
*after* a release, not right before one.[1]

[1] But that wouldn't be half as fun complaining, wouldnt hurt Debian
    as much, eh? 

bye, Joerg
<lamont> is there a tag for "won't be fixed until sarge+1"?
<sam> depends whether the BTS is year 2037 compliant

Reply to: