Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Sure they do: > > > > 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). > > The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular > > technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; > > this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may > > determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is > > justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be > > implemented.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:17:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > My reading of that has been that this is limited to actual technical > matters (such as those in 6.1-2 of the Constitution). But on > re-reading the text, while I would still say this, I agree that my > reading is by no means the only one of the text. > > So, Technical Committee, what say you? Would you entertain such > requests? Caveats: I'm not the technical committee, and this isn't the mailing list for the technical committee. [The technical committee reaches its decisions by voting, but debian-vote is for GRs, not committee decisions]. Also, the consitutional interpretation which the committee decides on could be overruled by the Project Secretary [who might be heavily influenced by the opinion of the author of the constitution]. With those cautions in mind: Of course we would. We've dealt with analogous issues in the past. Ben Collins got the committee involved in his "crypto in main" document, when he was leader, for instance. There's a flip side of course (would the committee agree with you on what you propose? which mostly relates back to: did you consider all the important issues?), but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. As a final note: if you want to release some free package in main, which depends on some package which has a DFSG license but is in non-free rather than main, I can't think of any reason we wouldn't support you in getting that other package into main. -- Raul
