Re: Q to all candidates: Universal Operating System

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

In article <[🔎] 20190320092906.j5u47e6a3kjo34ox@xanadu.blop.info>,
Lucas Nussbaum  <lucas@debian.org> wrote:
> An unofficial motto for Debian (unofficial because it is not part of our
> foundation documents) is "the universal Operating System".
...
> 1) So, if you were asked to write a Social Contract paragraph about our
> universality, defining/outlining both what we aim for, and also maybe
> some limits to that quest for universality, what would it be?

This is a very interesting line of questioning.  It seems a point of
conflict in the project.  I was wanting to ask something similar.

> 2) More specifically, if you believe that we should not aim for being
> fully universal, *how* (in terms of decision-making processes) do you
> think that we should draw a line about what's acceptable,

I would like to reframe this question:

When should we expect a Debian maintainer to put in effort for use
cases, software designs, hardware platforms, etc., that they don't
personally care about ?  I have an answer to this:

So long as most of the work is being done by those who are interested
in the use case, maintainers (and anyone else with a gatekeeper role)
should do their bit (by carrying patches, mentioning alternative
dependencies, advising about debugging, or whatever).

DPL candidates: do you agree ?

Thanks,
Ian.