On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's > overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and > motivation? I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3. The purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL meet DFSG. I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome of such determination, and I think it would be uselessly confrontational to draft it as overriding them. My view is that the FTP masters are delegated the power to decide which software belong in the archive at any given time. They are also required to make this determination in a limited timeframe and with limited resource than might be insufficient for the most complex issues. As long as this proposal is not calling explicitely for packages such-and-such to be moved in or out of the archive, it does not override them. Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are not the target, the AGPL is. (For those of you who believe in Montesquieu separation of powers, the FTP masters delegated power is executive while a GR under 4.1.5 is legislative. For the others, thanks for reading so far.) Cheers, -- Bill. <email@example.com> (Please CC me) Imagine a large red swirl here.
Description: Digital signature