Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
- From: Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:53:18 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120702185318.GD23810@grep.be>
- In-reply-to: <20120629172554.GB24909@virgil.dodds.net>
- References: <20120622210156.GA17893@ftbfs.de> <20120625165835.GB20683@upsilon.cc> <20120629161815.GO10946@grep.be> <20120629172554.GB24909@virgil.dodds.net>
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:25:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 06:18:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > I don't think that's the best way forward.
> > I see three common uses of the debian.net namespace:
> > - As a testing playground for services which intend to eventually be
> > integrated into debian.org.
> > - People who use it as some sort of personal playground or personal mail
> > domain or similar things. I'm not sure this should be allowed at all
> > (and most people would seem to agree), but it is happening.
> > - As a name for a default setting in a webbrowser (default home page),
> > collaboration tool (e.g., gobby could default to gobby.debian.net),
> > default server for a Debian-packaged game (tetrinet.debian.net),
> > download URL for installer packages in non-free (I believe
> > flashplugin-nonfree uses a debian.net URL to download the flash
> > plugin, but could be mistaken), or similar things.
> > Calling stuff in the first category in "incubation" stage would seem to
> > be reasonable, as would banning the second category.
> I don't think there's anything at all reasonable about banning the second
> category. This is historically a large part of what the debian.net domain
> was *for*. It's a perk of being a member of the Debian project, which hurts
> no one. We should be happy that developers are proud enough of being
> members of Debian to advertise it in their domain usage, instead of trying
> to suppress the usage for fear that it will tarnish Debian's reputation.
Let me clarify: I'm not advocating banning that use of the debian.net
domain, but I'm not strictly opposed to it either if it's decided that
that's what needs to be done. In other words, banning that is something
that, IMO, is open to discussion.
The third category isn't, though.
> If there are uses of the .debian.net domain that reflect poorly on Debian,
> let those be taken up with the individuals responsible. I think it's silly
> to try to impose a policy on this domain because end users can't keep the
> domains straight. As long as developers are taking appropriate care not to
> confuse our users about the status, I don't see the problem; and if
> developers aren't taking appropriate care, that should be dealt with on a
> case-by-case basis - escalating to the DAM if necessary.
That's probably a more reasonable approach than just banning outright,
> > But I don't think running a game server as a service to Debian users is
> > something DSA should do (so it's not strictly in "incubation"), nor that
> > it should be considered "bad" usage of the debian.net domain; and changing
> > those to include a DD name in the URL would require an update of a package
> > in stable if the person who used to maintain it is now no longer
> > interested in running that service, the avoidance of which probably being
> > the main reason why you'd want to be using a debian.net URL.
> Yes. Moving either pioneers.debian.net or pdx.debian.net to a
> login-specific subdomain would defeat the purpose of having them at all.
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:
pi zz a