On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 06:19:14PM +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > And to the other candidates: do you agree about the seriousness of these > issues? How will you approach them differently? How will you achieve > more?
I think part of the reason here is that we have too many responsibilities tied together that people _all_ need to satisfy, I agree with you there; I think there's possibly even more. I'd like to float the idea of 3 teams: 1. Archive License Auditing (ALA) team; that performs copyright review [A License Compliance? team] 2. Archive Infrastructure (AI) team; that develops the infrastructure such as dak 3. Archive Management (AM) team; that executes stuff like removing packages and accepting them and what not. (I went for archive here, there are other non-anachronistic name options :D) I think the enforcement there is rather a social one: AM should accept packages from NEW, but only if ALA left a positive review for the copyright aspects. I believe that for binary-NEW we can remove the wait between accepting the package and doing the copyright review. The license compliance can be checked later and an RC bug filed :D The separation between management and infrastructure is a bit unclear perhaps, I'm not quite sure how it would work: Should AI just develop the infrastructure or should it operate it, i.e. can they SSH to machines and install new dak versions. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
