Re: New policy is not consensual
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Fernando C. Estrada wrote:
> The problem for me is that DPN is not about personal point of view, is
> a responsability to inform about the Debian Project and on behalf of it,
> so the reason of my decision is based on avoid exceptions that serve to
> set a precedent about the Debian Project encouraging and promoting
> monetary support (via advertising, fundraising campagins, etc.) to some
> of its members. As an example of the problem for me, if the mention
> about the campaign to raise funds to allow the English L10N and the
> "liberation" of your book appears in the DPN, what prevents that other
> mentions like this one [1] does not appear?
If you review the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter (also edited by the community),
vendors of PC preinstalled with Debian have been quoted more than once
either directly or indirectly:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue226#Asus_Starts_Selling_.2BIKw-209_Ubuntu-Powered_Netbook_in_Europe
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue226#Affordable_But_Capable_Ubuntu-powered_Laptop_Computers
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue226#Review:_ZaReason.27s_Verix_2_Linux_Laptop_Hits_the_Spot
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue180#Dell_dropping_its_Ubuntu_offerings.3F
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue138#Ordering_Ubuntu_on_a_Dell_Laptop
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue138#ZaReason_Readies_Ubuntu_9.04_PCs.2C_Servers
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue126#In_The_Blogosphere (HP)
As far as Debian is concerned, if the vendor is serious enough to make the
effort to get listed on http://www.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed, I
believe it's ok to inform our users that a new vendor has been added to
our listing. (Obviously we should not copy/paste the whole press-release
that they submit us, it would not fit the bill.)
If that vendor is run by a Debian developer (or hired Debian developers),
then I'm even more happy to mention it in the DPN. Whatever your personal
relation with the concerned DD, we should trust our processes and we can be
sure that they are dedicated to our freedom ideals and have a long-term interest
in Debian.
Of course, we don't have to have the same threshold than Ubuntu, but
outright refusing to mention businesses who are helping us to spread Debian
by installing it on the computers they sell is not the right decision
either IMO.
Note that those 3rd party announces always appear in sections "In The
Press", "In The Blogosphere" or "In Other News" in the Ubuntu Weekly News.
They are never part of the more official section "General Community News".
We could structure the DPN in a similar way to give us this freedom of
being more inclusive by pointing out what's happening in the broader
ecosystem while still keeping the "community news" at the heart (and the
top) of the newsletter.
To come back to your point of view, I understand you want to avoid a
slippery slope with too many commercial offerings that we would have
to advertise if we want to be fair among all project members.
First I would like to point out that 1 is far from "too many" and we can
take care of this problem when it becomes real (if ever). Then it will
still be possible to define guidelines to limit the number of such
occurrences:
- does the project contribute Debian-related free software/free documentation?
- is the project run by a Debian member?
- does the company give money back to Debian?
- is the company a sponsor (hardware, debconf, etc)?
Pick a treshold: if you require 2 yes or 3 yes you will already vastly
limit the number of cases that you have to accept.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/
Reply to: