Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:50:40 +0000, John Kelly <email@example.com> said:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:07 +0200, Roland Mas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> John Kelly, 2007-09-12 18:33:12 +0000 :
>>> Again, if Debian's highly esteemed social contract is for the
>>> benefit of users, then why not let users vote?
People who do, decide.
>> We do, actually. Those users who do show interest in influencing the
>> course of Debian by concrete actions rather than by mailing-list
>> trolling are entitled to vote. Others aren't.
>> How do we know the difference? The criterion is known as the NM
>> process. It's open to all.
> If only maintainers qualify as "users" then your social contract is a
Well, this is volunteer work. People who are doing the work,
decide how the work gets done. While we do pay attention to the needs
of "users", the users are not the people in charge; they do not get to
decide how things are done (opening a vote to users would essentially
mean that by sheer numbers they non-workers would get the right to
decide what is done, and direct the volunteers).
Indeed, I often pay attention to what is good for users, as
opposed to what users want; since users as a block are far less
interested in software freedom than is in their best interest (IMNSHO).
It also means that when I consider the issue of "users" as
referenced in the social contract, I am thinking of the whole universal
set of users; not any individual user (and I often use myself as a
proxy user for this universal set).
So, it is not about not considering users, or even considering
what users want, it is about who decides how I spend my volunteer time,
and what, in my opinion, is good for users. Wanting something,
and having the thing be good for you, are two very different kettles of
The most common form of marriage proposal: "YOU'RE WHAT!?"
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C