[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Jeroen Dekkers (was: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0)

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:56:55AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Mr. Dekkers, don't take this email as a personal attack. It isn't.
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:22:55AM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > > > > It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
> > > > > the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
> > > > > with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
> > > I find this attitude highly offensive and unconscionable, particularly
> > > coming from someone who is not even a developer (yet).  
> Well, as far as I am concerned it would have been worse if Dekkers were
> already a registered developer.  It would mean he passed NM without a clear
> understanding of the real position of Debian regarding non-free software,
> and of the DFSG.

It already has been, a lot of Debian developers I've spoken have the
same opinion. If you look at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2000/vote_0008, nobody even disagreed to
remove the non-free archive. Now, are you going to ask to remove those
5 people from Debian because they don't understand the real position
of Debian regarding non-free software?
> Debian *does* tolerate software non-compliant to the DFSG, and will continue
> to do so in the foreseeable future.  It is in the social contract, and as
> such it is very clearly stated in the last sentences of paragraph 5.  This
> is the plain truth.

Oh, that vote on the url above actually shows a different thing.

> Dekkers, you don't have to like it, but you have to follow this rule while
> acting as a Debian registered developer.  What you believe the social
> contract should be does not matter at all; you have to follow what it really
> *IS*.  I am sure that by now you have seen just how many developers already
> in Debian -- some of them who did a lot for Debian and have been with us for
> a long time -- take to heart the fact that paragraph 5 is there in the
> social contract.

A lot of them disagree with it, don't follow the social contract etc.
> You MUST understand that you have to work alongside with non-DFSG-free
> software users, if you are to join our ranks.  You don't need to like it,
> but if you cannot handle that without being obnoxious, you will be a pain in
> the ass for everyone.  Debian will never stop being about DFSG-free
> software, but it won't stop being about supporting our users -- including
> those that use non-DFSG-free software -- any time soon, either.

Are you sure? On what do base that? Because you want it this way?
> I am sure you now know first hand just how instable a mix our mailinglists
> are.  Don't stir it or a lot of people can't help but lose a lot of time in
> the resulting blow-up.  THIS IS NOT FUNNY, we have a lot of real work to do,
> and not enough people doing it.

And why do you think we don't have a lot of people? Because some
people are assholes on the debian-devel IRC channel or start flaming
before actually reading the thread they reply to.

> > > DAM to reconsider Jeroen Dekkers' application for new maintainership, and
> > > potentially place that application on hold for a period of time to further
> > > assess the signal-to-noise his membership represents to Debian.  I believe
> > > that his immaturity is detrimental to the project.
> > 
> > Because you don't think the same way I do?
> Maybe it is because you have been more than a bit obnoxious about it lately,
> Dekkers.  Consider that possibility, please.  Others have already told you
> this, and I am telling you the same: it is not really what you said, it is
> HOW you said it that is the biggest problem.

Already a lot of Debian developers told me this: Don't care about
those people not agreeing with you, go spend some time hacking.

> Let me expand on that... Let's go back a bit in time.  I first remeber your
> name from the kernel packages naming thread.  And my first impression of you
> was not a good one.  You came across, to me, as someone that could not and
> would not wait for an opportune time to expose, and try to implement his
> ideas.  You also did not strike me as someone particulary tolerant of (let
> alone open to) opposed ideas to your own either (especially because of the
> kernel packages thread).

I am, but you need to get some good argumentation. If you your
argumentation is void, then you will never convince me.
> Maybe those impressions I had of you are unfair; time will tell.  However,
> we just watched the flamewar that got started by you giving that same
> impression to others, only that this time the mess directly involved an
> user.  Many developers take that as a Very Bad Move, to be immediately acted
> upon.  Maybe that was the reason the thread blew up that high, this time
> around.

The thread blew because those developers should take a reading course.
> Still, IMHO you should seriously consider the possibility that you are
> coming out as too agressive and confrontational (and therefore aggravating)
> when talking about your personal beliefs, or pet projects.

That's true, I already apologized. 
> Do you understand, now, that Debian is not made only of people that think
> exactly like, or as strongly as you do, regarding non-free software?  Do you
> understand now why the Social Contract has that fifth clause, and exactly
> what that clause means?  Is it clear to you how the Debian project, as a
> social system, keeps a balance between the first, and fourth (plus fifth)
> clauses of the social contract?

No, because the social contract is just too vague.
> I advise you to seriously consider replying to the questions in the
> paragraph above *at length*, and sending a carbon copy of that reply to your
> AM so that he adds them to your application report.

I already said I had moral objections to non-free software. I also
said that some parts of the social contract aren't vague, for example
what they mean with "commercial software": free or non-free?

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpmx3FGo7sxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: