From: | MJ Ray <mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: are we being honest about legal resources? |
Date: | 2008-03-12 15:38:46 |
Message-ID: | 47d7f906.sEkXhUftetEibxIp%mjr@phonecoop.coop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
Theodore Tso <tytso(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:15:10AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/03/msg00065.html [...]
>
> Looking at the Debian bug reports, one of the things which I'm
> confused about is whether Debian actually cares about this officially.
I think the Debian project cares about all bugs officially according
to their severity, but it's been pointed out in the above thread that
these bugs are unconfusing to those unfamiliar with the problem.
Would writing it up as a Debian Enhancement Proposal fix that?
> Remember, debian-legal [...]
While those views on debian-legal and debian-vote are interesting,
offensive and slightly incorrect, they're also irrelevant. Most of
the people wanting to fix the bug are from debian-www AFAIK. There's
some overlap with -legal, but that's hardly surprising.
> People from the Debian ftpmasters and Debian www team are delegated [...]
The detail of the www team's extent or powers seems a bit too hazy to
rely on those. Is it just the listed members (debwww group IIRC), the
core WWW Team (webwml) or the listed address debian-www(at)lists(dot)d(dot)o?
> [...] Looking at the bug reports in question, I can't tell whether
> or not anyone official at Debian has made the determination that this
> is worth being a priority project --- [...]
Priority project? One of www's maintainers marked it as an RC bug and
none of the others downgraded it in about 4 years. If someone has
decided that this matter can't get advice from SPI's lawyer, or that
debian has been advised, the bug tracker should be told, either way.
> So don't think asking the DPL to get involved is unreasonable. In
> fact, it is the only reasonable thing to do so.
What is unreasonable is making up new rules to claim a simple question
was forbidden or invalid because only one of SPI members asked.
That's just dicking people around with bureaucracy IMO.
As pointed out previously, a past DPL was involved and one of the SPI
board is asking the current DPL for the current view. Please let's
wait for that and see how the DPL election plays out (two candidates
have different types of web work as part of their platforms so far,
which seems a good reason to vote for them) and keep further flames
off this list.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MJ Ray | 2008-03-12 16:00:43 | Re: are we being honest about legal resources? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-03-12 15:31:22 | Re: are we being honest about legal resources? |