On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections,
or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social
Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be
inappropriate for
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of
scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to
interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract
mandates
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the
ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the
constitution is not the object of the dispute.
Nowhere do I see anything that says
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian. Were
they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself
by determining that
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that
power, but so far, I am not. Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a
request for how the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You
may consider that a
Hi,
I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this
request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and
therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.
The question at hand is whether the statement this package is not
useful without non-free
Hi Wouter!
You wrote:
The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
Resolution.
Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
Resolution.
You (or
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this
request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and
therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.
The Section: field of a
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
or, failing that
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You
may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this
may be true of many
12 matches
Mail list logo
