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

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 05:38:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note that while Peter is currently in the n-m queue (on hold pending
> > further response to T&S checks apparently), he's not yet a developer,
> > and his expectations shouldn't be inferred to be those of the developers
> > as a whole.
> > 
> > Working out whether those expectations match those of the developers as
> > a whole is what this GR -- and the discussion preceeding it -- is about.
> > I'd strongly discourage people who participate in the discussion (whether
> > you've run the n-m gauntlet or not) from dismissing developers' concerns
> > about this as a "red herring": if you're right, you shouldn't be afraid to
> > discuss the reasons why you're right in detail when asked.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:56:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> To add to that, if i where Peter, i may feel slightly offended by the tone of
> your reply as well as the content of it. You are the DPL, and as thus speak
> with the authority given by the whole project, and i think you should as such
> be a more careful in your wording.

I was entirely careful in my wording. Peter is in the n-m queue, he
isn't a developer, and while he has every right to his personal views,
as do you and as do I, those views don't necessarily match those of the
majority of other developers or the project as a whole, and we should
be very careful not to accidently quash discussion of other points of
view by being so vehement in our own views that other people don't think
their view is welcome.

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:28:03AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> And again, contempt before discussion. If you don't want the debate to
> be public, you should ask the rules to be changed so that they are held
> on a moderated mailing list. Otherwise, the rule is that anyone is free
> to contribute to the discussion.

Indeed, and I specifically pointed that out in my mail. I hope you agree
that I'm also free to participate and point out Peter's participation
in the project isn't what people might assume from the authority with
which he imbues his views, if I think that's valuable.

People posting to Debian lists should be doing so on the strengths of
their arguments -- and if they are doing so, pointing out that they're
not a maintainer should have absolutely no effect on the success of their
arguments. If it emboldens developers to post about their opinions even
when they disagree with what appears to be consensus, then that will
only help avoid misunderstanding their views in future: because at the
end of the day it's the developers' views that determine Debian's view,
not any one else's.

> You are the project leader, and as such your are partly responsible for
> the image of the project. I don't want (and I hope I'm not the only one)
> the project to be associated with your deliberately obnoxious behaviour.

Then I would suggest you debate the issue on its merits, rather than
making the topic of debate be your views on my character. 

If you believe a comment on a list has no merit, it's very easy to deal
with it: just ignore it, and go on discussing the ideas that are worth


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: