The "other" diversity statement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA384
I really should not be writing this. I should be sleeping.
I have to get up for work in less than six hours. But I
*really* would love to know a DD vote outcome on something
like the below text, though written with less sarcasm, I
guess. (If this vote proposal finds any Seconds, I'd be
surprised and would be interested to see what came out.)
The "other" diversity statement
===============================
Vote A: Agree
- -------------
Debian promotes freedom of choice for their users. We
actively support multiple of inclusing, but not limited to:
* architecture (i386/amd64/x32, ARM, MIPS, SPARC, m68k, AVR32, ...)
* kernel (Linux, Hurd, kFreeBSD, ...)
* compiler (GCC, LLVM+Clang, ...)
* init system (sysv-rc, file-rc, OpenRC, systemd, ...)
* user shell (bash, ksh93, mksh, zsh, ...)
* system shell (bash, dash, mksh, ...)
* graphical environment (GNOME 2/MATE, GNOME 3, KDE, Trinity,
Xfce, LXDE, ..., as well as not using a desktop environment
but a single window manager, or even not X-Window at all, or
even using Wayland)
* web browser, office suite, ...
That as long as they are technically feasible (not too buggy,
but requiring global changes is allowed) and have maintainers
and interested parties. We believe progress comes from competition,
and while Debian is a do-ocracy, the Social Contract puts our
users first. (Note that developers/maintainers are also users.)
Vote B: Disagree
- ----------------
I actively support a different position than Vote A, for example,
I might:
* Want diversity to not be in the way of progress, e.g. remove
the choice of kernel in favour of using all the nice features
that systemd offers (oh and think of the security!).
* Be a package maintainer who does not want to fix bugs in their
scripts that assume properties of a subset of usable shells,
and since the packages I maintain are that important and/or ugly,
nobody would dare remove me from my position.
* Not want to read any more "Debian-Ports spam".
* Want our developers to confirm to much more than just current
Policy, require them to use more and more complicated frameworks
that are supposed to take work off them and force the same
packaging style on everyone (even if it's an ever-changing target).
* Want to make choices for our users, for some reason.
* ...
Vote C: Indifferent
- -------------------
I am not in either camp A or camp B. Whatever it's fine with me,
or I do not have a strong enough opinion to care either way, since
I believe the majority of DDs will ensure the outcome to not be
too extreme.
Vote D: Other
- -------------
My position cannot be categorised in either A, B or C.
Also, further discussion.
OK, I'll STFU now and go to bed. Please Cc me on any answers.
bye,
//mirabilos
- --
Yay for having to rewrite other people's Bash scripts because bash
suddenly stopped supporting the bash extensions they make use of
-- Tonnerre Lombard in #nosec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MirBSD)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=lBnF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: