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

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Git Packaging Round 2: SHOULD Not or
    Ian> MUSt NOT Github"):
    >> Unfortunately, I believe you are in the [wrong] when judging

Ian placed the word "wrong" in my mouth replacing the word "rough" from
my original mail.  I disagree with that characterization of what I said
in the strongest possible terms.  Judging consensus is not about finding
right or wrong; it is not about a moral judgment at all.  Judging
consensus is about finding agreement (or its lack).  When I say that Ian
is in the rough, I mean that I think there is not a perfect consensus on
the issue, and that Ian holds an view that is inconsistent with what
consensus exists.  I'm also implying by that statement that the
discussion is not ongoing; that we've reached a good enough
approximation of consensus to move on even though some people wish we
had reached a different conclusion.

    >> 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."

    Ian> Blimey.  I didn't realise that.

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

    Ian> It just demonstrates that we have few working enforcement
    Ian> 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.

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

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

    Ian> We should resolve this with a GR.  Something like:

This sounds like a discussion that would be better on debian-project.
I'll try and move it there, quoting your draft text.

--Sam