Le 2011-10-11 05:42, Jeremiah Foster a écrit :
On Oct 11, 2011, at 03:17, Filipus Klutiero wrote:Le 2011-10-09 16:33, Jeremiah C. Foster a écrit :On Oct 7, 2011, at 21:19, Filipus Klutiero wrote:Le 2011-10-07 02:30, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :On Thu, 06 Oct 2011, David Prévot wrote:[snip]I think we have to distinguish 2 things first:I don't see how this distinction is useful.• Advertising the assurance contract for the translation to English • Advertising the "liberation fund" The assurance contract is about providing a useful service to Debian users for a fee. It is our job as editors to determine if the offer is worth it to users, considering the price, and then worth being advertised in the DPN.Where are agreed upon editorial guidelines that inform you of your "job?" It is not a job, it is done for fun on a volunteer basis. As such there is no real editorial power and you should not act as a filter between useful debian stuff and those want who read about it."job" in the sense of "responsibility"."Responsibility" to whom and what? To readers. From where does this responsibility emanate? Is there a description of this responsibility somewhere upon which people have agreed? Our responsibility of editing the DPN simply comes from the fact that we are DPN editors. No principle will tell you whether the answer is a clear Yes or a clear No. The liberation fund is asking for donations to freely license the book's content. This part is quite clearly inappropriate for the DPNIts hardly clear - if it were we wouldn't be having this debate.Again, I think it's important to make the distinction I explained.Again, I think the distinction is irrelevant. Your repeatedly maintaining it is without any evidence doesn't make it so. Your assertion that this debate implies that the appropriateness of the request for donations to freely license the book's content is unclear is unfounded. Where do you come up with these policies? Is this what you think should happen or is this something you've read somewhere?I didn't speak of any policy. Just like there is no policy preventing a maintainer from asking package users to donate to some random entity, no policy (ignoring DMUP) prevents DPN editors from including the discussed section as is.Perhaps you misunderstand how I'm using the term "policy." I mean something like this: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ That is also what I had understood and what I was talking about. Nowhere Debian Policy prevents a maintainer from asking package users to donate to some random entity. Similarly, the DPN has no policy preventing its editors from including the discussed section as is. Policy "is typically described as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)"[0] This is in fact what your are speaking of, a principle to guide decisions. That principle, as best I can surmise, is that all and any commercial projects do not deserve mention in the DPN. If that is not your policy please elaborate, but even if it is, you surely understand that any policy governing the DPN ought to be subject to at least a lightweight consensus? I wasn't talking about such a principle, sorry if some understood it that way. Let me restore the context of what I wrote: if people think freeing the book deserves donations, they should get it listed as a specific option by SPI. If SPI considers this worthy of inclusion, then *maybe* the DPN could indicate that this option was added. I hope it's obvious that doesn't suggest the above principle. |