On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:53:11AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I see what the problem is. If one is not reasonable, it can be one > maintainer with whatever reasonable numbrer of people to second its > existance. I can even live with parity between main and non-free. > (like: 3 for main, 5 for non-free) Presumably, there are enough people with their feet planted against this GR that they will "second" the existence of any package in non-free. So, in that case, you don't have majority rule; you have minority veto. And a very small minority at that! > But bottom line is, these shall not be majority rule. After all there > will be some strange head, some plural number may be a good idea. If this GR goes to a vote, then requiring non-free packages to be "seconded" by a larger number of people than actually rank the GR below the default option might be a good idea. That way you're more likely to have confidence that a given package's existence is supported by the "neutrals" in the argument, instead of just by hard-liners who feel that no package should ever be dropped from non-free, or who don't really care but simply want to express their opposition to the GR in any way they can. > Minimum requirement to weed out junk is interesting concept. It is, but it would need to be implemented in such a way that there is actually some pressure on non-free to "dwindle", "wither", or "die" as so many opponents of the GR say it will if we just leave the status quo in place. If non-free should *not* "dwindle", "wither", or "die", then we should be changing the Social Contract to *embrace* it. -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk branden@debian.org | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Attachment:
pgpiIOM2Wzfqn.pgp
Description: PGP signature