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

Questions for the candidates



Hello,

I'd like to know the candidate's opinion on the following questions.
They can either be processed here or during the irc-debate (but I don't
know if I can make it for the debate physically).

For the following points, I'd like to know whether the candidates think
this particular thing/issue/question lies in the scope of the DPL, and
if yes, whether they have an opinion about it or how they would cope
with it:

 - Debian did have stronger ties to the FSF in the past. Maybe it is
   time to think about our relationsship with the FSF and try to
   cooperate/communicate more with the FSF in places where it might be
   appropriate, like licensing issues, documentation, contact to the
   GNU-tools developer etc. (of course, this could only work on a peer
   to peer basis, and would not neccessarily include RMS)

 - The Linux Standard Base is an important effort for the future of
   Linux IMHO. I consider it important that we are as compliant as
   possible, without giving up our identity. This would probably mean
   coordination between developers and also includes the question
   whether we should include updates for better LSB-compliance into
   stable point releases alongside security updates (if there are any,
   and they are acceptable)

 - Inclusion of NetBSD (or any other BSD) and the Hurd need cooperation
   between the respective developers, the archive maintainers and the
   dpkg authers, as far as I can tell. Especially for the Hurd, my
   feeling is that its developers have become quite embittered during
   the last years because of lack of support by the rest of Debian. Some
   talking and motivation behind the scenes might have a positive
   effect, in my humble opinion.

 - There are quite a few developers who are either MIA or left the
   project for various reasons in the past. In some cases the situation
   might have changed in the meantime and it might be worth trying to
   reinvite them into the project, but I wouldn't know which delegate
   would be responsible for something like this.
 
 - I've read the -private archives of '96 and early '97 lately and I had
   the impression that there was a lot more discussion (and flow) about
   formal stuff in Debian back then than now. Maybe it is time to
   rethink about the constitution and see if some modifications would
   better match the project in its current state?

I'm sorry if some points show a lack of insight on my part, I did not
have the time to research each point extensively.

thanks for your attention,


Michael

Attachment: pgpUq4s4GEhFh.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: