On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:43:34 -0500 Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> wrote: > > Are you asking the CTTE to make a non-binding formal announcement > > using 6.1.5 as to whether, in the opinion of the CTTE, browerified > > source is source under the DFSG? > > Yes.
[...] > > Or potentially overrule the release managers determination of > > whether this particular bug is RC or not? > > Yes, this would be a result of first question (whether browserified > source is dfsg free). If browserified source is dfsg free, this bug > cannot be rc. If we addressed the first question (non-binding announcement), the release managers could still decide differently. The RMs are the people who decide whether a bug is RC or not. The RMs can decide to delegate the decision to us, but I don't think that the CTTE is able to decide this without the RMs making the first decision. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4)
