Re: Jeroen Dekkers (was: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0)
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:47:02PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:56:55AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > 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.
I don't remember you being around then. While the vote never truly took
place - and so no opposition was recorded - I kept a private tally for
myself of which developers expressed support or opposition. As I
remember, at least two-thirds of developers who spoke up in the debate
on debian-devel were in opposition to the proposal.
> 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
Those people recognized that the real position of Debian is not what you
think it is, and tried to change it in the proper way. Primarily because
the Project Secretary was missing during that period, the motion to
change the Social Contract expired and has not been raised again since.
Even in the proposed modified Social Contract, the title of Section 5
would have read "We will support users of our system who develop or run
non-free software." I think it's important that we are not hostile
towards users who find that a change in Debian breaks their non-free
software: we don't necessarily have to bend over backwards to help them,
but our promise in the Social Contract that we will support the use of
non-free software ought to include more consideration than the phrase
> > 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.
I see you haven't yet acknowledged that a bug in glibc's versioning of a
symbol was involved, which Ben has said he will fix in the next release.
> > 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.
And yet you repeat the hostility towards developers who honestly
disagree with you just above ... Please take what Henrique said to
heart; I think it's important both for you and for the impression
developers get of the projects you champion.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org