Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:56:46AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> I think this is clearly incorrect. The DFSG and the SC do not say >> anything about the requirements for main that I can see. >> >> And it is the *job* of the tech-ctte to resolve disputes. > > I don't enjoy speaking with you, and I'm going to stop now.
Um, ok, whatever. So, for the record: The DFSG and the SC don't say anything about the requirements for main; the tech-ctte exists to resolve disputes such as this; and I have no particular stake one way or the other about where ndiswrapper lands. It seems to me to be a quintessentially technical issue, to which some people have attached a status thing, so that if it lands in contrib, it is being somehow demeaned or shortchanged. (And then, some people have gone further, and figure that if "their software" is being demeaned, then they are being demeaned too.) ndiswrapper seems to me like a useful tool; our standards for main/contrib distinctions are not crystal clear, and call for the exercise of judgment. In the first instance, that judgment is the maintainer's to make, but it is the ftpmasters' job to review it and make their own independent determination about where it belongs in the archive. If there is a dispute, tech-ctte is there to settle it. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
