Re: Questions for the candidates
* Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> [2003-03-06 20:53]:
> - 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
Yes, I'd certainly like to see more cooperationg with the FSF (and
other organizations, for that matter). In fact, many informal
cooperative efforts have been made recently. For example, Paul Eggert
(of GNU tag, gzip, bison and many other tools fame) follows the Debian
BTS. When he prepares new upstream releases, he tries to fix bugs
reported in the BTS and then actually sends the Debian maintainer a
listing of bugs he has fixed. That's really great. OTOH, the GNU
people also benefit from our great BTS and from our testings efforts.
Furthermore, I've recently worked with RMS to track down an inactive
maintainer... so there is some cooperation going on, but I'd certainly
see more of it, especially on a more formalized level.
> - 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
Yes, I certainly think that being LSB compliant is important. Please
see my answer to a similar question during the IRC debate.
> - 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
I was amazed at FOSDEM to see how far Debian NetBSD is already. I
thought Hurd has quite a few upstream issues before it can be
considered for release; however, I must admit that I'm not current on
what's going on there... but my impression is that they need more
hardware support, eliminate the partition size limitation, etc before
they should release. I'd also like to see the port to L4 happen, but
I don't know how fast this is going to happen.
> - 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.
Some developers who have left the project have recently been re-invited
by the the keyring maintainer and are not back. Inactive developers
who re-appear generally don't have to go through NM but can simply
send their signed key to the keyring maintainer.
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
Reply to: