On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> They can consider it, obviously. They cannot overrule ftp-masters on this
> matter, however. OTOH, ftp-masters may decide to listen to whatever the
> ctte recommends, but they don't *have* to.
They can consider it ind
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail
> of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You
> may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this
> may be true of many t
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> > authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> > or, failing t
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this
> request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and
> therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee.
The Section: field of a De
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> Resolution.
You (or wh
Hi Michael!
[Cc'ed Manoj, as he's the authority on the constitution...]
You wrote:
> > Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for this issue? It is
> > them who decide if the package can go into main or not.
>
> The package is already in main. The person who filed this bug thinks
> t
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:45:00AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Bas Zoetekouw writes:
>
> > Hi Wouter!
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> > > authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> > > or, failing tha
Bas Zoetekouw writes:
> Hi Wouter!
>
> You wrote:
>
> > The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> > authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> > or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> > Resolution.
>
> Wouldn't
Hi Wouter!
You wrote:
> The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body
> authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract,
> or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General
> Resolution.
Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for
9 matches
Mail list logo
