Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> writes: > 2012/10/30 Olivier Blin <[email protected]>: >> Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> There has been a wide consensus for the solution to put it into >>> tainted as has been said in this thread as well. >> >> The consensus was maybe not so clear then. > > Maybe not so clear for those whose opinion differs from the consensus, > understandable. I did not write about a consensus as first one, it has > been written repeatedly by others.
My opinion does not differ from the "consensus": - I don't have a strong opinion on this - I just did not see a clear consensus after carefully re-reading all the thread (from the beginning of the month) yesterday >>> Sorry if it is too offending for one or the other if I call this >>> procedure "ridiculous". >> >> Where do you see a procedure here? :-) >> Offer one if you think that's needed. > > Ah, in case you have missed all those mails in the devel list: > 1. The issue was brought to the attention of the people, including the > developers. > 2. The issue has been discussed at length including mantra-like repetitions. > 3. Several people suggested the same solution (we did not start a poll > but to me it looked like a large part of the participants of the > discussion). If I am wrong here then all others who saw it like me are > wrong as well > 4. All it needed now was action according to that consensus. > > This is what I call a procedure and how issues have been treated many > times. May be your definition is different. What I call a procedure is a documented way of doing things before we actually do them :-) > After the discussion reached this state everybody waited for action, > which may have ver well have been delayed because of other more > important work. That was the subject/contents of the opening mail and > first answers of this thread. Until somebody started to open the > discussion again. > > Another option would have been to bring the issue to the council after > the first discussion ended but I haven't yet read any mail about such > a move during the months since then. > Is that what you were waiting for? If things don't move on, yes, we should bring this to the council. >> It could be up to the council or board to chose the lesser evil between: >> - picking tainted for non-free + tainted packages like faac, and thus >> forbid mirroring tainted packages that are only free-software >> (but maybe that's the hypothetical 'selective mirror admin' from Guillaume) > > yes, you've been calling those existing mirror maintainers > "hypothetical" before. Very good argument. If I don't like something I > just pretend it isn't there. This looks like a misunderstanding, again. The hypothetical selective mirror admin was about an admin selectively picking sub-trees (free, non-free) of PLF. Do you know of any admin doing this? -- Olivier Blin - blino
