Re: Censorship in Debian

[Christian Kastner <ckk@kvr.at>]

On 2019-01-08 11:23, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 1/8/19 4:57 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:16:15AM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> What I am asserting is that the Debian Social Contract explicitly states that:
>>>
>>> "4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>> …
>>> I DO assert that, as one user, I don't see this being honored in the breach, with decisions around systemd, and init-system-neutrality being in direct opposition to this principal.
>>
>> I don't agree that those decisions were in direct opposition. There
>> wasn't a single answer that was unanimously in the interests of all
>> users, because all users do not agree on the desired outcome. Not even
>> "init-system-neutrality" as you put it would be unambiguously in the
>> best interests of all users. Clearly you would have preferred a
>> different outcome. You aren't alone: but correspondingly, many users got
>> the answer they wanted, and many others didn't have a dog in the race.
> 
> Differing opinions here.  Somehow, major changes in direction, that go
> against "the Unix way," and have direct impact on both systems
> administration & upstream development, seem not to be in the interests
> of many users.

There are no differing opinions here. Jonathan clearly acknowledged your
position. He then pointed out that other positions existed, and that no
answer unanimously in the interest of all users existed.

You keep arguing as if only your position mattered. All positions were
considered, a decision was made which of these served this interest of
the users best. That's complying with the mandate to prioritize users.

> The systemd rollout just broke too many things.

I doubt that the systemd switch was even noticed by 95% of users and
if, then I'd wager that it was a net positive effect.

-- 
Christian Kastner