On 11/03/14 20:47, Neil McGovern wrote: > On 11 Mar 2014, at 18:20, Daniel Pocock <[email protected]> wrote: >> There is some ongoing discussion (on debian-legal) about whether the FTP >> masters will accept a particular package > For those who weren’t around 10 years ago, I would suggest[0] reading up on > #283578, and associated mails to the lists, LWN articles etc around the time. > > Neil > [0] Or don’t. It’s probably better to do something more useful with your time. >
283578 is far less controversial It was rejected softly using some very generic reasons The more controversial package being discussed now probably needs to be rejected more emphatically (and not simply using some technicality) In case it wasn't clear, my original email wasn't about restricting the powers of the FTP masters in this situation, rather it was about Debian asserting (either through FTP master policy or FTP delegation or whatever) the rejection of the type of content that is now up for discussion, whether it appears in NEW, as a subsequent update to any existing package or whatever. People are welcome to discuss this type of thing objectively on the email lists of course (that is free speech) but it probably needs to be clear that as a long-lived and widely used distribution, there is some written line in the sand about this type of content that we can refer to if it ever comes up as a hypothetical discussion again. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
