Re: *** SPAM *** Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels (Was: Re: NEW handling ...)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:24:41PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The Vancouver meeting summary upset me, not because of the proposals
> to drop architectures, but because it contained a reminder of the
> Social Contract changes. The project is moving to what I believe to
> be a ridiculously extremist position. I can't support the new Social
> Contract, and wouldn't sign up for it if I were going through NM right
> now. So the only honourable thing for me to do is resign at the point
> when it come into effect.
>
> It saddens me greatly that we've come to this situation. I've been
> proud to be a Debian Developer for the past 6 years. I'd like to say,
> as others have when resigning, that I will continue to run Debian on my
> machines, but I can't. Moving documentation to non-free makes Debian
> a less suitable distribution for me. I shall have to look around and
> see what other distributions suit my needs.
The way that I deal with this from a personal point of view is to
remind myself that non-free is supported by Debian-the-organization,
even if it is not formally "part of the Debian distribution".
Semantic games, but unfortunately Debian seems to be more focused on
flame wars about semantics than actually shipping code and
documentation that meets the needs of its users.
If the free software fanatics succeed in kicking non-free from being
supported by Debian assets, such that the FSF documentation were no
longer available, I'd probably end up agreeing with you and probably
would do what you are considering to do after sarge ships.
If it would help, I'd ask you to reconsider. If all the reasonable
moderates leave, then all that will be left will be the extremists.
Regards,
- Ted
Reply to: