Re: irc.debian.org
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:15:16PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:59:48PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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).
>
> And again I ask: what makes it official?
I've already responded to that, let's not waste any more bytes.
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> So, any service somebody runs where people go to talk about debian is
> a valid candidate for a debian.org CNAME? An interesting possibility,
> although it'll probably introduce a whole heap of other problems and
> conflicts of interest.
The necessary condition for anything to be given official approval would be
to be about Debian, but surely far from the only one...
> > > > > 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?
>
> No, but the situation is pretty similar to the /usr/doc thing. Given
> sufficient transition time there is no reason why we shouldn't drop
> the single CNAME entirely in favour of something else (like a webpage
> listing some networks people might want to visit, or a whole range of
> CNAMEs).
That sounds better. Which of these options are you suggesting?
> > > > 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. [...]
>
> Another good example of a "principle" that can be used to justify anything.
File a bug against the social contract? Sheesh.
> > I think that aiding our users waste their money is very much against their
> > interest. Don't you?
>
> The sheer scale of the "I'm the oracle, accept what I say as Ultimate
> Truth" here has overwhelmed me and left me unable to think of a
> suitably mocking remark about assumptions.
You mean, when I assume the donation money is wasted as in spent for the
wrong things? So far I've only seen the OPN people give explanations that
were very vague ("[future] vocational, educational and advocacy programs"),
insufficient ("small office budget") and unsupported by e.g. the text of the
PDPC's bylaws. Excuse me for not being convinced with such strong arguments,
and a history of asking to help pay lilo's bills :p
> > Technical criteria are important, too, but the above one is one where we
> > shouldn't tolerate violations.
>
> Unjustified assertion. I imagine a lot of people will disagree with
> you on this one, including the people who wrote clause 5 of that same
> document.
There's a difference between supporting a bunch of non-free packages and
twenty times more free packages, and supporting use of an IRC network doing
spurious fundraising and none that don't.
> > > 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 continually implied that the CNAME should exist and should
> point somewhere else, and have never presented any evidence of giving
> other options serious consideration.
That's because the CNAME already exists so for backwards compatibility it
should keep existing for at least some time in the future in any case, so
replacing it seems like the best thing to do.
> Nor have you given any consideration to what will happen next time a
> similar issue is raised.
If we do things properly this time, there may not be a next time.
> > You have not provided much else than attempts of blurring the issue at hand.
>
> Or, phrased differently, I have illuminated parts of the issue which
> reveal it is not as clear cut as you would like people to believe, and
> that it actually requires serious consideration instead of a
> witchhunt.
Rrright... so, witchhunts aside :> shall we now please seriously consider
these issues, so that we could change the status quo which apparently very
little people actually think is the best?
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: