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

Re: Fund raising advertisement on the DPN

Le 2011-10-12 15:15, Jeremiah C. Foster a écrit :

On Oct 12, 2011, at 19:37, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

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:

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.

This is your own personal imagined responsibility.

Interesting supposition...

 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.

Your logic is tautological and therefor wrong. You don't get responsibility simply because you've decided that you get it.

I find it very nontautological that tautology implies incorrectness.
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.

So, which is it? Are you not "speaking of any policy" or are you "talking about" policy?

I was talking about a sense of the word "policy", telling you that I was not - before that - speaking of any specific policy in that sense of the word.

Filipus, you don't seem interested in consensus. Until the interest in compromising is evident I suggest we stop discussing this issue since there is a lot more heat than light.

I don't know if I'm interested in consensus, but I'm not more interested in continuing this discussion. Rest assured that if you have nothing interesting to add, I won't feel offended to see the discussion stop here.

Reply to: