I second this. Hamish On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > non-free software for it users. > > 2) the Debian project also acknowledges that some developers may be > unwilling or unable to explicitly work on non-free software, and > holds that this is not and should not be detrimental to their work > on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, or their contribution to the > Debian project. > > 3) the Debian project considers equating the importance of the "contrib" > and "non-free" areas described in the Social Contract with the > official Debian GNU/Linux distribution inappropriate. > > 4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other > collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to > specifically collect the various other add-on components such as > "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly > separate these from the "main" collection. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to > offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging > that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility. > > This is obviously something of a compromise position, and as such it is > intended to be a resolution that can be agreed to even without agreeing > that it's the better possibility of those offered. > > While the implied technical changes in item (4) should not have any > significant negative consequences, they may be implemented in a way that > will provide some significant benefits: tying orphaned and experimental to > a particular release may make some software more accessible to users who > do not wish to run unstable; and setting up infrastructure for various > add-on components may make it more convenient to host staging areas > that don't quite conform to policy: in order to make Gnome packages > consistent, or to make IPv6 packages usable, or even to distribute > Debianised KDE source. > > I imagine this ammendment would be best as a separate option on the > ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds. > > Respectfully submitted, > aj > > -- > Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> > I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. > > ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. > We believe in: rough consensus and working code.'' > -- Dave Clark -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
Attachment:
pgph5AXNx4m4a.pgp
Description: PGP signature