On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +0000, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the > > delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made > > to violate a foundation document in our release. Just like an > > individual developer does not have a right to decide to violate the > > DFSG in their work, I think the release team, which prepares the > > release, can do so unilaterally either (I did not vote for Bush). > > And you're comfortable with ftp-master ruling DFSG-iness through NEW > then ? I don't really see the difference.
I can't speak for Manoj, but for my own part, I have not seen any evidence that ftp-master is letting things through NEW which are in clear violation of the DFSG, so it doesn't come up. > FWIW you can query all the lenny-ignore bugs on the BTS, there arent a > lot, and check if you agree. Unlike Bush (and the reference is quite > offensive, really) we don't hide such matters, and we never said we're > not open to discussion. > > BUt yeah, tagging bugs lenny-ignore is part of the RM tasks, and we're > delegated for that (among other things). So far, the release team has shown no awareness in this thread that ignoring a technical RC bug is entirely different from ignoring a violation of the core documents of the project. Nobody is talking about technical bugs, and it would be helpful if y'all stopped bringing them up. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]