Re: Q to all candidates: what is the long-term role of traditional Linux distributions?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 4/2/19 3:22 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Given these upstream shifts, is attempting to package as much
> software as possible something that actually benefits Debian and
> our users, or is it something that brings us a duplication of
> effort? If we spent time on building tooling to automatically
> identify that (say) installed Go applications that contain
> dependencies with security vulnerabilities and alert users, would
> that be time better spent than independendly packaging and
> maintaining those dependencies ourselves? Are our current
> priorities the best way to serve the free software community over
> the next 10 years? Would we be better off focusing Debian as a
> high-quality base for users who then largely consume software from
> other sources?
+1 to all of Matthew's questions, and I would add a few more from a
people standpoint:
How do you think motivations and incentives have changed, are changing
or will change for contributors to Debian in a world where distros no
longer mean what they used to?
If tools, policies and/or processes weren't a source of frustration
for contributors, do you think they would still disengage from the
project because they want to package software/be the subject matter
expert for said software?
Do you think Debian should focus more on the derivatives as users
rather than individual end users only? And if so, connecting to the
first Q, how would you manage new people being attracted to the
project and some current contributors feeling de-energized about it?
These are essentially the same question and I'm not expecting
candidates to pretend they can control people's feelings. I'm glad
Matthew brought this topic up and that we're having all of these
conversations as part of the campaign.
Thanks,
Jose
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=/0Wf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: