Re: Comparison and rebuttal of Raul Miller/20040119-13 against Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:50:08AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Raul has added several strong guarantees of effort on the part of
> Debian, which do not presently exist. I strongly oppose these. As a
> maintainer with no packages in non-free, I refuse to do any of these
> things. The constitution (3.1.1) trumps the social contract here, so
> these statements are non-operative - they do not describe what
> developers do, and they cannot compel developers to do these things.
>
> The current clause 5 of the social contract accurately describes my
> position, as somebody who has little or nothing to do with
> non-free. Raul's proposed amendment does not. I think that a majority
> of the developers will be in a similar position.
That argument would make sense if you were the only person in the project.
But the project as a whole can have goals which individual developers
do not pursue.
> We only accepted the LSB on the proviso that it would not interfere
> with other packages - that it could be handled entirely by the people
> who were interested in supporting LSB applications. I object to any
> proposal to expand it beyond this.
You seem to be asserting that we, as a project, shouldn't recognize such
standards violations as bugs. This seems to conflict with part 1 of
the social contract which [at least currently] says that we "support
our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian".
Note also that I removed the reference to LSB.
-
Raul
Reply to: