Ben Collins wrote: > So, if those objecters will adress my counter-objection to them, I will > concede the objection.
If you think my objection is gratuitous, I think your proposal is gratuitous too. I'm sorry but objections are not "conceded" by people doing policy proposals. They just happen as part of the policy process. If you disagree you have to change the policy process itself. "First they forbid source-only uploads, but since I did not do source-only uploads I didn't care. Then they forbid uploads to `stable unstable', but since I didn't do such uploads I didn't care either [...]". Does this ring a bell? Debian is about freedom, and policy should not forbid things "just in case". We should only forbid things because they are bad, and uploads to "stable unstable" are not inherently bad *per se*. My reason for objecting is that it also forbids *legitimate* uploads. We should not forbid things that should not be forbidden. It's that simple. If there is need of a technical reason here, we need a technical reason to forbid legitimate uploads, which is (one of the things) your proposal would do.
