Re: NM non-process
Matt Zimmerman said:
>On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>> I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
>> whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
>> problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and
>> should not be ignored.
>Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free
>software, which we work hard to promote.
This is a danger because it's a stupid waste of effort. The "Debian2"
project would have exactly the same goals, and presumably most of the
same software and processes, as Debian, except that it would be better
about communicating: accepting or rejecting applicants in a timely
Should we *have* to fork for *that*? The XFree86 people didn't want to
have to fork for similar non-technical social issues, although forking
was certainly considered. GCC had an egcs fork for similar
social reasons, and eventually it 'took over' the main GCC development
line, which ended up pleasing everyone. It seems better all around to
just fix the breakage with the Debian processes, *if* possible.
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>