Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that's certainly a great deal better, structurally. I guess I've nev= > er=20 > really seen any ftp-master discussion on this list... but then again, I=20 > don't know their names, so I wouldn't really know who was who. But at leas= > t=20 > there is some amount of accountability.
There is a communication problem with some delegates at the moment, but debian-legal is not the only place that has been raised. I think that would be a good topic for the DPL team to examine urgently. It would help to direct debian-legal if ftpmasters didn't only appear to troll. I last lamented this in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00570.html > The fact remains that it is far too easy to criticize d-l if operations=20 > continue under this system. I've been on this list for almost 4 years, wit= > h=20 > special attention ever since I entered law school... I know the sort of=20 > round-and-round fights that go on here that later get presented in FAQ's as= > consensus. =20 Could you please name some and what FAQs present them as consensus? > As I said, I've never actually heard an ftp-master agree or disagree with t= > he=20 > list... but if I were in their position I would have a hard time accepting= > advice from a forum who can't point to language that backs their claim. Some of us can and do. Maybe you simply disagree with it? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]