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

Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:01:56PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> While the current practice is useful for the introduction of unofficial
> project services, it may involve certain risks. One risk is that
> outsiders can not and will not distinguish between debian.net and
> debian.org entries. Another risk is that those unofficial services will
> stall if the maintainer who 'owns' those entries leaves the project. We
> are also observing domain-squatting in the debian.net zone.

I like the reasons behind it but not the result.  The problems you
mentioned are real and need to be addressed.  Whatever the domain or
subdomain is, it should be clearly marked with some message on both the
top level part (eg debian.net/www.debian.net) as well as the "child"
sites with some sort of message. Maybe even something generated to say
who is responsible for what subdomain (yes I know dig tells you, but
the website could too!)

If debian.net is too close to debian.org then I would suggest using a
different domain rather than sub-subdomains. Other projects do have
this difference, wordpress being one.

People will get confused no matter what you do.  I quite like the
debian.net idea and what has come out of it.  If the policy is weak,
then I'd say tweak the policy.

I'm not in favour of these large chain of domains, maybe I'm a lazy
typer. In short:

  * If domain-squatting is a problem, make the policy define and ban it
  * If inappropriate content is a problem, make the policy define and
    ban it
  * If dead projects are a problem, make the policy define and ban it
  * If people go to website xyz.debian.org and you think they wont
    understand its not from the real debian, make the policy define what
    must be put on that site to reduce the confusion

The "thing" that is banned/defined must be objective and must be around
what could damage Debian, not what some people think is a waste of time.
love.d.n is a perfect example, I liked it as did others, some probably
did not; but in any case I don't think it should be banned.

 - Craig

Craig Small VK2XLZ   http://enc.com.au/          csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux     http://www.debian.org/      csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint:     5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2  0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5

Reply to: