Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit :
> package: tech-ctte
>
> Following up on #830978. I would like this to be reopened and request
> CTTE make a formal vote.
The discussion that lead to closing #830978 happened on IRC [0] , see the full
log from line 172 [1] , a
I'd be willing to vote on the ballot you propose.
I disagree with your rationale for why this bug is not for the TC to
decide.
But I agree that this bug is not for the TC to decide at this time.
So, if that's all we're voting on, and I don't need to agree with your
rationale to vote C, I'm fine wit
Le mardi, 4 octobre 2016, 07.12:24 h CEST Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I'd be willing to vote on the ballot you propose.
> I disagree with your rationale for why this bug is not for the TC to
> decide.
Good. Can you outline shortly why ?
> But I agree that this bug is not for the TC to decide at this
> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
Again, I'm fine with your current ballot.
As stated, I don't think the TC should (and am skeptical of can) decide
on the DFSG-freeness of a package directly.
We could mediate, but it's clear we don't want to here.
I do think there are things we cou
Dear Pirate:
I hear that you're fairly frustrated by the response you're getting from
the TC.
Speaking as someone who has read extensively the earlier bug log, I
think that your cause would be advanced by getting an additional primary
advocate who has a better understanding of what the TC can do,
Dear joseph:
This message will be hurried: I'm on a train and approaching my stop.
Thanks for your detailed message. I don't agree with all of it, but I
find it a lot easier to interact with than some of the requests we've
gotten related to this issue.
Here are some factors to consider:
1)
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:30:01AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>...
> Here are some factors to consider:
>
> 1) It's not clear to several TC members that the FTP team has decided
> on this question. It seems fairly clear how they would decide if they
> did decide, but from a process standpoint, it
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any
Adrian> decision would be an RC bug against perl claiming that the
Adrian> Configure script is not DFSG-free.
This RC bug was filed, and I think everyone involved including the Perl
mai
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any
> Adrian> decision would be an RC bug against perl claiming that the
> Adrian> Configure script is not DFSG-free.
>
>
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
Adrian> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:54:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
>>
Adrian> In other words, the best way forward for getting any
Adrian> decision would be an RC bug against perl claiming that
On 2016, ഒക്ടോബർ 4 7:49:28 PM IST, Sam Hartman wrote:
>You're asking questions that don't make sense from a p.process
>standpoint, doing things that have a very low probability of making
>anyone happy,
A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue. #839801.
I feel thes
11 matches
Mail list logo
