Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > > votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing > > political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a > > GR. > > The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for > the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else. > > We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on > issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to > work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement. Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact). > And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such > opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads > to more fracturation of the project. > > But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about > issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are > GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft > political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian > goal ? I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be put to the table.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature