On Thu, Dec 10, 1998 at 02:43:54 -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> Like it or not, if you were the Debian Project Leader then all of your
> publicly expressed opinions and actions would be perceived as that of
Having been involved in Debian both under a non-quiet and a quiet project
leader, I'm still not sure which I prefer. Perhaps a middle ground between
Bruce and Ian.
Bruce once said "Debian is a political organization, and that's a *good*
thing". I tend to agree. In the cases where Debian needs leadership, both a
sense of timing and a reasonably fast response time tend to be important.
The response has to be the right one though, so some form of consultation
with the Debian Group Mind (TM) is appropriate. It looks like this would be
easy in Joseph's case, as he's often found on the #debian-devel IRC channel.
Take for instance the KDE licensing issue. IMHO, it took too long for us
internally to come to a conclusion. This might have been sped up under more
hands-on leadership. Once that conclusion was reached, it was acted upon
> The only reason I bring this point up is because I have noticed that you
> are quite active on Slashdot. Would you be willing to limit your posts in
> highly-visible public forums such as slashdot to topics and opinions that
> we can all be comfortable with as representative of the Debian viewpoint?
> In other words, a relatively quiet DPL is a good DPL. A different alias
> would allow this while still allowing you to express yourself fully.
I like Ian's approach to this, which is the other way around: use your
regular identity for private opinions, and make a separate identity
(email@example.com) when the Debian viewpoint is represented.
I don't think being Debian leader should be too much of an impediment to
speak one's mind.
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan