Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:40:37PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> This distinction has caused substantial confusion for years. The line
> between "support" and non-support is grey.
Only if one is a slashdot troll who doesn't actually read the SC...
But anyhow, that's a too flame-ish way to start this email. Please ignore
my opinion above and read on.
> I believe we must be honest and straightforward with our users, and we
> must neither act in violation of our current social contract
Where are we violating it? Are you referring to buildds not recompiling
those packages or something else?
> Secondly, let me state that the Social Contract is primarily a set of
> promises to our users.
On related note, I think it would be fair to require all of developers who
agreed to abide by the current SC when they joined to vote on the matter,
and also require supermajority of the voters for it to be changed, since the
document is a cornerstone of the project.
Heck, the cornerstone of the community, regardless of the fact this change
would likely not impact most of the users... perhaps we should make a poll
among users, like Joey did for the security upgrades? Their opinion counts
as much as the opinion of maintainers like me, who aren't involved in
maintaining anything in non-free.
Arguably all this would stall the whole process indefinitely. But we
weren't quite getting anywhere by doing nothing for the past few years.
> nor pretend that our project is set in stone in the 1990s and can never
> adapt
Usually I wouldn't bother saying anything here, but since some other
old things annoy me a lot in Debian, I must say -- hear, hear! :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: