> > Graeme Stewart > > I'm sure that many of us are very concerned about the future of Debian > > re. what we have read. > > I am.
I'm not. > > I really hope that it succeeds, in fact I hope to contribute to its > > success, but my _perception_ at the moment is of technical secrets being > > kept from users (re. XFree3.1) and of possibly dark and unpleasent > > personal problems dammaging the distribution's development. Agreed that there is the perception that the development effort has been keeping a secret from us that we should have been made aware of. That's the *perception* at least. However, my belief in Debian and what is stands for is, largely, unshaken. On the other hand, I should point out that Nixon's real crime was in trying to *cover up* watergate. In light of that, I would recommend that, now that the leak has happened, that there be a full disclosure of what the whole deal was about to begin with. Specifically, I'd like to see someone address: o How close did Debian 1.2 come to being released after the X 3.1 bug was known? o Who was in favor of releasing it with X 3.1 and why? o Who was in favor of waiting, and why? o Who has resigned as a result of all of this and what did they control? As a final note, I'd like to cast my vote in the stability/security vs. prompt-release debate. I personally, and I'd presume a large majority of other users out there, really don't mind waiting an extra few weeks in exchange for a release that's substantially more secure. However, I'll also point out that I have only ever tried to put X on a Debian system *once* and even *that* one didn't work. So, the X 3.1 hole doesn't affect me at all. Perhaps we can release everything except the X 3.1... with the understanding that the X 3.2 package will be forthcoming in a week or two. - Joe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
