On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > But there _are_ trivial cases (e.g., most of the init script issues, > bug 425702) where a simple ChangeLog entry would be enough for > traceability.
I think something like that is best announced first, and then done if there is no issue. I have no issues with just moving forward with that one without maintainer involvement. Perhaps first just post a list of packages that plan to be touched in the announcement. >> I think it is best to at least ping the maintainer before switching a >> license. If anybody spots a license issue that they believe to be >> serious and they don't get a timely response from the maintainer, they >> should escalate it. I'd go a step further and request CCing the >> trustees from the start on any issue that involves contact from the >> copyright holder in any form. > > This can certainly be done. Be prepared for some bug spam, though. The key words are "serious" or "contact from the copyright holder." Bugs in these categories can't just sit around until a maintainer comes back from vacation - if we are notified that somebody believes we are possibly infringing copyright we need to take rapid action. I don't think that necessitates commit first and ask questions later, but it does need to start getting looked at by human beings that day. Also, my intent isn't to disenfranchise the licenses team. The Foundation is clearly accountable here, but insofar as the licenses team can stay on top of serious issues I would expect the Trustees to let them do their job. I just want the message to be that at the end of the day nobody should be able to argue that we didn't take what they believed to be a serious licensing concern seriously. Rich
