[ Please send replies to -devel, Cc's to me encouraged ] When I originally stated my interest in running for Debian project leader, I was unsure if I really would be a good candidate or not, so I offered to run if others believed I should. I am confident that I can be a good leader for Debian, and I'm pleased that others who have commented seem to agree. With this message I announce my intention to run for Debian project leader. The obvious requirement for the job is time for the project and lots of it at that. But I also believe the project leader should take an active role in leading the project, but not to the point that they start pushing instead of leading. The ability to listen to people you don't agree with is also very important, as is the ability to say what you're trying to say clearly. I believe I have these qualities. I think it's important that those who are planning to support me in this election be aware of my position on a few issues. One of the most prominent issues I see affecting the project right now is IWJ's proposal to rewrite the DFSG. I am opposed to this and believe we should focus on correcting the problems with the current DFSG rather than trying to totally replace it. I also am opposed to some of the changes made in Ian's proposal, namely placing a time limit on use of the BSD Advertising clause and disallowing licenses which require modifications to source code be made as patches. I can agree that both of these things are not desirable even if they are at the moment allowed by the DFSG. I can agree that we might make it known in a revision of the DFSG that both of these are depreciated because they are difficult to work with, but removing them outright seems like a bad plan to me, as does applying a time limit to their acceptance or grandfathering well-known applications or licenses. As for the future, there are a number of things I can envision. The short of it is that Debian is currently working towards these things now. These include unattended and multiple machine installations, a better package front-end, smoother installation on more hardware, that sort of thing. I support making things user friendly, but I think other distributions are making a few mistakes I hope Debian does not make. Under some distributions, there are really nice and pretty high-level configuration tools which automate tasks, but many of them don't work unless you stick with the standard configuration. Debian's tools seem to have this problem much less often, but as a consequence they are more mid-level tools and require more reading on the part of a new Linux user. I believe this is the Right Way to do things, and many of you agree with me. However I also support high-level tools which work with these mid-level tools. Often times this makes the high-level tools easier to write, and when that isn't the case, the added difficulty in writing the tool is rewarded with seamless integration with the current system. This is good. An example of a high-level tool which could be designed to work with an existing mid-level tool might be a configuration utility for sendmail. Instead of trying to build sendmail.cf, it would build sendmail.mc which is much easier for a number of reasons. Just about everything that can be done with sendmail.cf and be done with sendmail.mc, the program could read the mc file which would mean that changes made manually would not be lost, and all around everything is more smooth. I realize we have kicked the idea of release goals in favor of project goals, but I believe it is important that we prioritize our goals together and figure out what we want to do in the short term. Some goals I think we can accomplish with potato are 2.2.x kernel, glibc2.1, a better package front-end, and more streamlining of the installation. I think PAM is possible too, but this largely depends on coordination of effort. I believe we should start moving in the direction of FHS compliance too, we'll see how that pans out. Of course we shouldn't limit ourselves to these things. If something else comes up that can be done, I believe it would be foolish not to do it because we decided beforehand to focus on something else. Certainly we shouldn't hold up a release for changes like the above unless of course something really requires it. The best we can do is work around them. Another issue that has come up a few times is restructuring of the archives in one manner or another. I am not sure everyone suggesting it realizes what a big job this would be. I can see that some changes are beneficial, but I think I would object to a gratuitous change. If the change is needed, we should discuss it and make the changes we need to make. However change for the sake of change will only frustrate users and developers alike. I know some (read: most) of you are worried about bureaucracy creeping into Debian. I'm as concerned about this as many of you are and I hope that we can work together to keep reasonable amounts of process down to just that: Reasonable amounts. Controversial topics come up and sometimes it is difficult to know where everyone stands and to reach a group decision. Other projects like Debian's policy document are really almost too big for one person to maintain effectively without much frustration for everyone. I don't think we should complicate day-to-day matters with politics and needless processes for every single thing that comes up. I really want to avoid it as much as possible. If anyone has any other questions or comments, please feel free to say something. => I do read my mail and do answer it.. Also a msg on irc will usially get my attention. I can be found on the Openprojects almost always as Knghtbrd. -- "I may be a craven little coward, but I'm a _greedy_ craven little coward!" -- Daffy Duck
Attachment:
pgp6AAaCdvFit.pgp
Description: PGP signature