On 27 May 2005 09:31:37 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The fact that it's not debian-legal's job in the first place? > > Seriously, if you can find references that provide constitutional > > delegation of these decisions to -legal, I'll be somewhat more happy > > about it all. > > I agree with the first three lines: debian-legal is an advisory > group, although currently endorsed by debian policy. It is > not a delegate and has no decision-making power. The last > DPL discussed making delegates, I think, but didn't.
That's right, I apologize for using misleading words (being an English
native speaker would have helped here, but I'm not!).
When I said "they delegate to debian-legal partecipants" I didn't mean
that they delegate the decision-making (that is to say "this package
belongs in main, that other one belongs in non-free, and so forth"):
that is indeed up to the ftpmasters to decide.
What I meant was that they delegate the /legal analysis and discussion/;
they delegate the /advisory role/.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpsJNDqrWHD4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
