Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#839570: Browserified javascript and DFSG 2
(reopening)"):
> Would the following ballot be a better fit ?
> ==
> C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2'
> FD: Further Discussion
> ==
I think this would be an extremely unsatisfactory outc
Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you.
When this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice.
The advice I wanted to issue isn't the advice you wished we issued, but
it would have at least been advice.
However, I was the only one on the TC who wanted to touch the issue.
It w
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:59:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> I think the TC has many reasonable options.
>
> * You could say that you think you aren't authorised, by the
>constitution, to overrule a decision on DFSG-ness, and invite the
>petitioners to consider a GR.
In any case t
> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes:
Sam> Obviously, there's a level at which I agree with you. When
Sam> this came around last time, I wanted us to issue advice.
This was something I intended to send to Ian privately, not to the bug.
Apologies for the spam and for emphasis that probably
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:00:53AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>...
> I think it's clear that the TC believes that this package is not DFSG
> free.
> I think it's clear that the TC believes perl would be better if the
> situation was improved.
> I thought it was clear we believed perl had a DFSG issu
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Please describe the relevant differences between browserified
> javascript and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a
> DFSG issue but the latter probably has not, in a way that I can deduct
> what the TC would believe regarding the similiar pr
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:06:57AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Please describe the relevant differences between browserified
> > javascript and perl that make the TC believe that the former has a
> > DFSG issue but the latter probably has not, in a way
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
Don> I don't believe there is anyone on the TC who is arguing that
Don> perl doesn't (or at least didn't) have a DFSG issue.[1]
Don> We merely believe the TC does not have the power to make a
Don> decision for the ftpmasters without being dele
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:10:35 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The TC is clearly not too busy, just too lazy.
I find your recent mails quite aggressive which makes them unpleasant
to read for me. Please try to change your tone a bit.
Cheers,
gregor
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Homepage https://info.
Adrian Bunk writes:
> Why are TC members complaining that they do not even properly understand
> what "browserified" means, instead of using the power to give advice to
> structure the discussion?
Probably because without a response to #830986, "browserified" either
means including Jison outpu
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:21:40PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > Why are TC members complaining that they do not even properly understand
> > what "browserified" means, instead of using the power to give advice to
> > structure the discussion?
>
> Probably because with
Philip Hands writes:
> Praveen, please respond to #830986
Actually, I withdraw that request -- I doubt replying there is going to
be a productive use of your time, and is probably not going to improve
your chances of getting what you want either.
If you fancy explaining what you think browserif
[I realize there have been several messages subsequent to this, but I'm
working down the list in order of presentation by the GMail web interface.]
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
wrote:
> Le dimanche, 2 octobre 2016, 14.29:49 h CEST Pirate Praveen a écrit :
>
> > package:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
wrote:
Would the following ballot be a better fit ?
> ==
> C: Decline to rule on #830978 'Browserified javascript and DFSG 2'
> FD: Further Discussion
> ==
>
I'd like to state again that, if you (the TC as a body) choose not to vote
in favor o
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
>
I do think there are things we could do in this space.
> We could set policy consistent with the DFSG on what the definition of
> source code in Debian is.
>
Could the TC offer guidance, or is
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
First off, I would like to, sincerely and truly, thank you for responding
to my message. I'd been wondering if maybe they were going into a black
hole of some sort. You give me some reassurance that they are not, or at
least not entirely.
T
]] "Joseph R. Justice"
> Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so
> when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug
> status for software whose source code is available but determined to
> be insufficiently free for the DFSG while active efforts are un
For the record, I wish the message I am now responding to, and other
subsequent responses and discussion, were being sent to the bug mail
address *in addition to* all the other addresses they're being sent to. I
am choosing to send my response here to the bug mail address, at least in
part so ther
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pa irate Praveen
wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] "Joseph R. Justice"
>
> > Could the TC offer guidance, or issue a statement, on if (and if so
> > when) it should ever be permissible to allow a waiver from RC-bug
> > status for software whose source code is available but determined
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
A quick update, I have asked ftp masters to make a ruling on the issue.
> #839801.
>
Forgot to mention in my other response to this message...
Should this bug (839570) depend on the FTPmaster ruling request bug
(839801), or vice versa, so a
21 matches
Mail list logo
