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

Re: irc.debian.org

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:18:07AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > > > That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> > > > > run by the network itself; several other channels are run and
> > > > > frequented by developers, but so what? The Debian project itself does
> > > > > not run any channels there.
> > > > 
> > > > No, irc.debian.org points to OPN and #debian on irc.debian.org is the
> > > > officially recommended Debian support channel. OPN has always been
> > > > acknowledged as our endorsed IRC network and is listed at our partners
> > > > web page because of this.
> > > > 
> > > > Debian doesn't run any channels -- for crying out loud, that is why OPN is
> > > > there!
> > > 
> > > None of that is in conflict with what I said. OPN is endorsed as a
> > > network, but the project does not have any actual resources or
> > > channels hosted there.
> > 
> > Your meaning of "not having channels hosted there" completely evades me.
> > I consider #debian a Debian channel that is hosted there. Isn't that so?
> >
> > (It is an OPN channel in the basis, of course, but also Debian's because of
> > the deal to have irc.d.o == irc.op.n.)
> So we have irc.debian.org pointed to irc.openprojects.net because
> #debian is an "official" debian channel because irc.debian.org is
> pointed there? Sorry, circular reasoning doesn't fly. The channel
> isn't run or controlled by Debian.

Are you doing this for fun or something?

We consider #debian an official Debian IRC channel. I think you are wrong
when you say ``OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff'' (see above).

Can we stop this now?

> > > > > Should we reserve *.debian.org for official Debian services?
> > > > 
> > > > It is already reserved.
> > > 
> > > Except that it isn't. irc.debian.org exists, which is not an official
> > > Debian service at all - it's an independant service that Debian
> > > endorses.
> > 
> > Your definition of "official Debian" is wrong. We use "official Debian sth"
> > for a wide array of independent services that we endorse.
> I invite you to quote other names in the debian.org domain which fall
> into the same category as this one. Or even examples of other
> independant services which are endorsed in this manner. The only
> occurance of this term I can find is in reference to mechanisms for
> acquiring copies of the distribution itself.

The situation is similar for any official mirror. We provide the official
mirrors with content (as in, something to offer for download) and users, but
it's their servers and their bandwidth. Similarly, we provide OPN with
content (as in, something to talk about) and users, but it's their servers
and their bandwidth.

Anyway, this is another word play. "official Debian", "officially endorsed
by Debian", whatever...

> > > It's quite possible that this CNAME should not exist at all.
> > 
> > That would certainly be an option, were it not for the fact this name has
> > propagated to many packages' default configurations, users' configurations
> > and after all, users' minds.
> "Because we have endorsed a given project in the past, the project is
> forced to continue to endorse some project for this purpose".
> I think not. We've dropped interfaces in the past and we'll do it
> again in the future.

It's not about projects, it's about services. When we have to pull a
ftp.xy.debian.org from some site, we normally either find a good
replacement, or alias it to some acceptable substitute, and only finally if
there's nothing else to do, drop it.

Offhand I can't think of a foo.d.o service that we have completely dropped.
Can you name some?

> > The criteria is pretty firm, I haven't seen a new foo.debian.org assigned to
> > a new services, well, ever since I joined.

(drow reminds me here that I'm wrong on the second part -- db.d.o was added
after I joined, and svn.d.o is in preparation.)

> > Anyway, if you want to define this criteria in a written document, by all
> > means, go ahead. But lack of such a thing should not prevent applying sound
> > judgement to the issue of whether we should have irc.d.o point to a network
> > that needlessly solicits donations to pay salary to its admin.

> "Sound judgement" means we define the criteria we use, compare the
> available options against those critera, and pick the best one.

I'm merely appealing to apply the fourth rule of the social contract as a
primary criteria:

  4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software

     We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
     community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. [...]

I think that aiding our users waste their money is very much against their
interest. Don't you?

Technical criteria are important, too, but the above one is one where we
shouldn't tolerate violations.

(I guess you'll now find other issues where there are violations of the
social contract and ask me why haven't I addressed them first. Or will it be
another word play?)

> You'd sound a hell of a lot less like Theo de Raadt if you actually made
> some attempt at doing this, rather than attempting to hand us an answer
> you brought down from the mountain engraved on stone tablets.

I mentioned what seemed to be a viable option, not a definite answer.

You have not provided much else than attempts of blurring the issue at hand.

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: