On 11/03/14 20:19, Ian Jackson wrote: > Daniel Pocock writes ("clarify FTP master delegation?"): >> The FTP team wiki[1] links to a delegation email[2] >> >> The delegation email is very light, it just says they are "Accepting and >> rejecting packages that enter the NEW and byhand queues" without any >> reference to the policies they should apply > > That means that it is for the FTP team to set that policy. > >> The wiki talks about their policies (which are well known to most >> developers), with some comments about the familiar NEW queue: > > AFAIAA this is the best description of the FTP team policy: > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
Thanks for pointing that out - but that, too, says very little about the package in question other than possibly: "trying to keep the archive legal" What is legal in the US (as in free speech) may be banned in the UK or Australia for example >> My impression is that the type of issue currently under discussion is >> not adequately specified in the FTP master delegation, it leaves the FTP >> masters to do more work on something that is actually quite complicated >> and has far-reaching ramifications for the project. It also means the >> FTP masters are in a situation where whatever they do, some people will >> feel they either did the wrong thing or some people will feel the FTP >> masters were wrong to make any decision without the project having a >> policy on the matter. > > I am very happy that the FTP team are making these kind of decisions > for the project. I definitely don't want the DPL to intervene (for > example, by making the FTP team delegation more prescriptive). My email was not a call for the DPL to jump in - the FTP team could actually suggest something (or maybe just add something extra to that FAQ) >> The absence of policy on this also has other ramifications: for example, >> a DD could upload a non-controversial v1.0 of a package, receive FTP >> master approval and then later v2.0 comes along with controversial >> content and according to the wiki, it will be automatically accepted. > > This is surely done for convenience, not as a matter of policy. If > you are aware of an instance where a package which has already gone > through NEW has been replaced by a new version which the FTP team > would have rejected, you should surely bring this to the FTP team's > attention (probably by filing a bug). Well, if the REJECT-FAQ was the criteria that a DD was referring to, then they may well interpret what is legal in their own personal location/context and feel entitled to upload it - but it may make Debian illegal for users and developers in other locations. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531f64fa.40...@pocock.com.au