Re: Q: NEW process licence requirements
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:57:24AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>...
> The other, critical, factor nobody has raised is time. Why not
> assume good faith here? After all, which is more likely - the FTP
> team are sitting around doing nothing and happy/enjoying the current
> state of affairs, or too busy with life/family/work and the quotidien
> admin tasks & other breakages that they don't have as spare cycles as
> we would like to work on this?
>...
This is not about assuming bad faith, more about bad priorities.
There are plenty of cases where people get annoyed by the NEW handling,
and when you say that the ftp team needs a thick skin that is also due
to many people thinking "Why did the idiots in the ftp teams do this
with my work?".
>From outside copyright handling in NEW ranges from
How did this package pass NEW with this copyright problem that is
obvious when looking at debian/copyright?
through
What the legal reason that the ftp team insists on adding all author
attribution to debian/copyright for GPLv2 software?
to
What is the legal reason that adding all author attribution is not
required for src:linux to pass NEW?
>From outside all this appears arbitrary and unfair, and you might be
underestimating the amount of frustration it causes.
Some cases might be an ftp team member making a mistake.
Many cases might be people not understanding why something is required
for legal reasons.
Most of us have more Debian TODO items than available Debian time.
Waiting for spare cycles might therefore not be a good way forward
for something that causes widespread frustration.
You were calling it "imposing an ultimatum", I would rather call it
"agree with the ftp team on a deadline".
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: