Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL
- To: Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>, debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Call for seconds: Delegate to the DPL
- From: Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 10:32:31 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] ZWr5r3eFkEeT+6ql@master.debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <ZWp1OQpCNwDPO/+m@seventeen>
- References: <ZWIZ1OFzsvX_PgDZ@iiec.unam.mx> <ZWObeiYr4aDAMy+m@seventeen> <efb5bb37-601b-417a-9245-b33226bf6f9f@debian.org> <ZWO1S9jofe7cIe3r@connexer.com> <ZWT4z+rmjMj6oZGE@master.debian.org> <87y1ejorqh.fsf@hope.eyrie.org> <ZWYGXVqxD66MwBSs@iiec.unam.mx> <ZWZWkWtD50/DA5sw@seventeen> <ZWZrbX8WUfM0UIij@iiec.unam.mx> <ZWp1OQpCNwDPO/+m@seventeen>
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 01:07:21AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 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.
One of the proposal texts puts the focus on that SC.
> > >
> > > 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).
>
> One major risk for Debian continued existence is that we start to become
> suspicious of each other political views outside FLOSS, that we start to see
> "collaborating with someone as part of our Debian activity" as "associating"
> with them, and that "associating" with them start to become socially
> problematic. There is a precedent for that.
>
> That is why I am quite against the whole 'community' view of Debian.
>
> In practice, it is very hard to participate in such GR without revealing
> political views, as you can see by reading the discussion.
>
> > > 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.
>
> It seems like you are underestimating the risks and overestimating the rewards.
> Such statement is only useful if written by people that understand enough of
> EU law terminology to address the issue. I asked whether the lawyer that drafted
> it was familiar with EU law and it does not seem to be the case. We should not
> make a statement that can be used against us.
I think we're fine if the GR states what Debian already continuously states.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
>
> Imagine a large red swirl here.
>
--
Reply to: