Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On 2004-01-03 16:46:34 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:10:28PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
I have no measurements to give right now, but you don't either,
He was asking for any of a wide variety of things, including
measurements. You have elected to provide none of those things --
and to focus purely on the measurement aspect of the question.
This accusation seems odd to me. Regardless, I thought the answer to
the first questions was both obvious and public knowledge. For the
record: I have run BTS and archives for projects of my employers only;
I have not run any of the debian infrastructure. The questioner
clearly knew the last part of that already and I think that was why
the question was asked.
I considered the last question ("Anything beyond a sincere wish
[...]") not possible to answer beyond what was written in other
messages, without sparking a long semi-OT thread.
But the fundamental points here are:
(Always a nice way to avoid the other questions.)
You've claimed that non-free, as it currently exists "hinders
debian", but most of your claims seem to be based on false ideas
about why things are in non free, and what people spend their
time on.
What have you been reading? On this list, I said what my current
opinion is and why (I am puzzled why you quote "hinders debian".) I
think I've never claimed to know all the reasons for DDs wanting to
put things in non-free. Indeed, if you can give any evidence for my
(unstated AFAICT) ideas being false, I'd love to read it and
reconsider those ideas. If you have compelling reasons to keep
non-free, or even some more insights, please post them.
Anthony has claimed that stripping non-free out of debian would
likely result in duplicated effort [and, thus, less productive time
available for debian]. He's offered his own experience maintaining
BTS and so on as his reason for thinking this.
Anthony is probably one of the best qualified to show or describe
interesting data about this, yet has preferred to make things up. That
vexes me.
There is the n-m process. I think that DDs have to know something
to get through it, as well as spend the time sitting through it.
But drive (motivation and persisntence) has a lot more to do with it
than knowledge.
Do you think that n-m is too easy and allows through people who do not
agree with the philosophy, procedures, tasks and skills?
It should not surprise anyone that apparently fictional numbers
support the arguments.
Ok, here's some numbers for the other side of the argument:
Making up silly numbers is no use to anyone! That was the point I was
trying to make. Of course one finds silly numbers that don't agree
with a prior belief "less convincing" than ones that do. If anyone has
more ideas about how to collect interesting data, please share them.
No. I say let the "bazaar" decide.
You mean, instead of voting on it?
No.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that it's
unreasonable to ask people who disagree with the infrastructure
to set it up.
How is that more unreasonable than asking people who agree with
the infrastructure to dismantle it?
Possibly only marginally, because it is asked for after the decision,
rather than before. It looks like it is less work than the creation
request, too, and has possible benefits for non-DDs.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: