On Wednesday 13 August 2014 11:35 AM, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > What Jonas meant here IIUC is it should be about *Debian* and not > something else like some people proposed of making "private > communication" as theme of it, then having name miniDebconf doesn't make > sense. > Isn't this too restrictive an approach? And also more like proprietary/trademark protection kind of approach (we will only talk about debian). Debian is a leading Free Software community and it is an international collective working towards making Free Software available to everyone. We respond to current challenges and Freedom Box is a great example. How different is focusing on private communications different from the goal of Freedom Box? Server software plays an important role in ensuring privacy for people and if we cannot offer debian as a viable option for people to depend on, what are we doing as a project? We should make all these software available in debian and make it easy for people to deploy. It shouldn't need an experienced sysadmin and lots of trial and error to have your communications secured. Shouldn't we as a community of people fighting for everyone's freedom respond to it? Debian do have many communication infrastructure like SIP bridge for video calling. Shouldn't we try to make a diaspora pod for debian community? We have Eben Moglen delivering a keynote on this same topic at main debconf http://penta.debconf.org/dc10_schedule/events/641.en.html So when privacy of our communications are in danger, it is only natural for debian community to respond to it.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature