On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of
> scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to
> interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract
> mandat
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections,
> or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social
> Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be
> inappropriate for
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the
> ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the
> constitution is not the object of the dispute.
> > Nowhere do I see anything that sa
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that
> power, but so far, I am not. Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a
> request for how the
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian. Were
> > they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself
> > by determining
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> 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 t
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 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
Hi,
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 question at hand is whether the statement "this package is not
useful without non-free so
12 matches
Mail list logo
