Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github"):
> Unfortunately, I believe you are in the [wrong] when judging rough
> consensus on this issue.
> 
> This was discussed fairly recently on debian-project; my take is that
> Thomas Goirand represented a position roughly the same as your own.
> My reading of that discussion is that:

Thomas was making a lot of much stronger assertions about what should
be done.

> More over your claim that this is not our current practice runs counter
> to facts. Of the 26,480 packages in my unstable sources with a vcs-git,
> 1836 are on github.  7% seems much more consistent to me with "NOT
> Recommended" than "forbidden."

Blimey.  I didn't realise that.

I think this does not demonstrate that I am wrong about project's
overall opinion about this.  I am confident that a GR to forbid this
would succeed.

It just demonstrates that we have few working enforcement mechanisms
against contributors who violate our norms.

> Even if there is not rough consensus to forbid non-free services, I'd
> welcome help documenting the concerns that can come up.

I think this is a question of Debian's core values.

Given the current situation, with 7% of packages in violation of what
I see as a key norm, it seems that this cannot be resolved via a
consensus process.

We should resolve this with a GR.  Something like:

  Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools

  No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working
  to improve Debian, to use non-free tools.  This includes proprietary
  web services.  We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's
  collective control.

  For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to
  proprietary git code management systems.  Non-Debian services are
  acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software.

  We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools.

  We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour
  of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to
  upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate)
  still need to refer to proprietary systems.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.