Sorry, guys; because 109436 was archived, this mail got dropped on the floor.
Here's a lot more context for my control message sent last night. ----- Forwarded message from Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: old, ignored Technical Committee ruling on #109436 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:12:17 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mail-Copies-To: nobody X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies. User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i I have reopened this bug for two reasons: 1) As I understand it, the Technical Committee's ruling was to let stand the archive administrators' decision, but to also require them to document their undocumented requirement that .orig.tar.gz files in the archive never change their MD5 checksums. The archive team has never done so to my knowledge, now over 9 months after the Technical Committee's ruling, and Anthony Towns closed this bug in March, asserting that it "wasn't an ftp.debian.org" bug. However, Raul Miller, a member of the Technical Committee who apparently was acting in accordance with the Committee's ruling, explicitly reassigned the bug to ftp.debian.org to carry out the task assigned to them. Because this task was never carried out, the bug should be reopened. However: 2) I have also reassigned the bug to the Technical Committee because it is difficult for me to firmly establish the assertions I have made above the Technical Committee's ruling. I am drawing on recollection and inference from the discussion thread on the debian-ctte mailing list in August of 2001. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/debian-ctte-200108/threads.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2001/debian-ctte-200109/threads.html Why am I unable to definitively determine the Technical Committee's ruling? Because the Technical Committee never publicly announced its decision as required by clause 6.3.3 of the Constitution: Public discussion and decision-making. Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members of the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public discussion list. There is no separate secretary for the Committee. I request that the Technical Committee formalize their informal ruling of August 2001 regarding Bug#109436, specify the documentation requirements they are making of the archive administration team, and attempt to ensure that the archive administration team actually carries out the decision of the Technical Committee instead of ignoring it and closing the bug. Thanks for your attention. -- G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if [EMAIL PROTECTED] | you're doing it right." http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen ----- End forwarded message ----- -- G. Branden Robinson | Never attribute to malice that Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained [EMAIL PROTECTED] | by stupidity. http://www.deadbeast.net/~branden/ |
pgpPqXvtCjuxl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
