Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates [LWN.net]

Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates

Posted Jul 31, 2009 14:25 UTC (Fri) by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693)
Parent article: Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates

It is the DPL's job to make decisions like this, or to delegate the
decision to others. Debian is not supposed to be a direct democracy:
we're supposed to elect a DPL to be dictator-for-a-year. So an
announcement like this is not arrogance, it is business as usual.

to post comments

Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates

Posted Jul 31, 2009 21:20 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

I thought that their constitution required that these decisions:

- be bitterly debated for several months on the general mailing lists

- generate at least a 900 post thread on Debian-Legal

- involve at least one call for the resignation of the DPL

- actually cause at least one resignation (usually by one of the people who had been calling for the DPL's resignation, and accompanied by a letter of resignation packing so much drama as to make Peyton Place look like a sitcom by comparison.)

- result in a flurry of general refferendums

- degenerate into a discussion of how binary blobs are against the DFSG, thus nullifying the existence of all previous Debian releases, and in fact, the existence of the Debian developers themselves.

- end up being settled by a hastily assembled compromise expedient with which no one is truly happy.

Did we bypass all that this time. Or is it still on the way?

Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates

Posted Jul 31, 2009 21:56 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

It looks like, through the swift action of the release team, all that might have been bypassed. I
hope. :)

Some backpedaling on Debian freeze dates

Posted Aug 6, 2009 9:30 UTC (Thu) by lamby (subscriber, #42621) [Link]

Wait, what? Not only is it _not_ the DPLs job to make decisions like this, nor did he in this particular instance.