On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:31:41PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Nor do I see anything in this resolution that guarantees the > availability of the former non-free elsewhere, or the provision of an > alternate debian.org domain name for it (like "not.debian.org"). > "Moving it to another server" looks to me more like "dropping it into > the memory hole." (Orwellian analogy intentional.) Ok. Why should it offer such a guarantee? If the necessary majority (I suspect a supermajority will be required) of DDs votes that non-free should be removed from the official archive network and should no longer be centrally managed using Debian resources, and none of those who feel affected by the removal are sufficiently motivated to set up their own archive for the displaced packages, why should this oblige us to find a solution? This is what you are arguing -- that even if there is a clear preference among DDs to not support non-free, we *as a whole* should feel bound to do so because the people who actually benefit from it aren't willing to do the work. How fair is that if Debian has clearly expressed their will that, by an overwhelming majority, they wish to not be associated with this non-free software? Shouldn't such a vote stand on its own for what it is? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpxA2m2lH56Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature