Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you. When this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice.
The advice I wanted to issue isn't the advice you wished we issued, but it would have at least been advice. However, I was the only one on the TC who wanted to touch the issue. It was quite clear from the IRC meeting that I didn't have the support. I think the TC did reach a consensus not to touch the general question and give advice there. I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG free. I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the situation was improved. I thought it was clear we believed perl had a DFSG issue, although IRC discussion today makes that less clear. I don't think the value of having the TC formally say any of those specific things is very high. I don't think having a formal vote to confirm the TC consensus to say nothing does much good. I do think such an outcome would accurately represent the current thinking of the TC as a body. I haven't seen anyone who has reviewed the log claim otherwise. I also don't think asking for a formal vote in a situation where there is a clear consensus is the right way to ask someone to change their mind. I think the TC is making the wrong call here. So do you. I guess I don't mind that you're bringing that up again. I'll be delighted if it changes peoples' minds. I don't entirely know what I'm saying. Perhaps just expressing disappointment in this overall process. --Sam
