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

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)



I second this amendment.

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
> 
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
> 
> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
>      non-free software for it users.
> 
>   2) the Debian project also acknowledges that some developers may be
>      unwilling or unable to explicitly work on non-free software, and
>      holds that this is not and should not be detrimental to their work
>      on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, or their contribution to the
>      Debian project.
> 
>   3) the Debian project considers equating the importance of the "contrib"
>      and "non-free" areas described in the Social Contract with the
>      official Debian GNU/Linux distribution inappropriate.
> 
>   4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other
>      collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to
>      specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
>      "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly
>      separate these from the "main" collection.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.
> 
> This is obviously something of a compromise position, and as such it is
> intended to be a resolution that can be agreed to even without agreeing
> that it's the better possibility of those offered.
> 
> While the implied technical changes in item (4) should not have any
> significant negative consequences, they may be implemented in a way that
> will provide some significant benefits: tying orphaned and experimental to
> a particular release may make some software more accessible to users who
> do not wish to run unstable; and setting up infrastructure for various
> add-on components may make it more convenient to host staging areas
> that don't quite conform to policy: in order to make Gnome packages
> consistent, or to make IPv6 packages usable, or even to distribute
> Debianised KDE source.
> 
> I imagine this ammendment would be best as a separate option on the
> ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> aj
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
> 
>   ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
>                  We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
>                                       -- Dave Clark



-- 
see shy jo

Attachment: pgpV14BEUgMak.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: