Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github
Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or MUSt NOT Github"):
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:07:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> For what is worth, I would vote against such a GR.
> I'm extremely uncomfortable reading what you wrote.
I'm sorry to hear that.
> I see you keep pushing things with a strong cohercive slant rather
> than working on creating useful and attractive infrastructure to
> make everyone's work easier.
The latter is what I am trying to do. I'm sorry that the opposite is
occuring.
> I wish this work would be grounded instead on an acknowledgement and
> acceptance of the, imperfect, diverse, yet still valid status quo.
For me, my opposition to github has nothing to do with my desire to
improve Debian's workflows.
I am indeed trying to improve Debian's workflows by providing better
options. Options that I hope people will voluntarily adopt, and that
will become more officially recommended - but *not* mandatory.
On the other hand, my opposition to github is like my opposition to
the inclusion of software in main which automatically and without
adequate user permission downloads and runs proprietary binary DRM
code. Or like the arguments we've had over the lack of proper source
code for some javascript and machine language programs. Software has
been blocked from Debian, and valuable contributors discouraged, as a
result.
Should we also tolerate these freedom problems as an "imperfect,
diverse, yet still valid status quo" ? Is it unjustifiably "coercive"
to block non-free software from Debian main ?
I guess one lesson I should perhaps learn is that it is difficult for
me in particular to push on these kind of software freedom issues when
they are entangled with workflow issues, because of inevitable
confusion/conflation/whatever.
So maybe I should leave the "Free Software Needs Free Tools"[1]
advocacy to others. I do still think it's important.
[1] https://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html
> Thankfully I still consider it to be so, with the exception of the
> occasional frightening cohercive twist in some of your mails.
Well, thanks for the rebuke. I hope I have clarified my thinking and
please do the same again in future. (Or, indeed, right now, if you
think this message is still frightening...)
Regards,
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.
Reply to: