On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:09:24PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > I think this SC#4 interpretation is an essential issue with significant > impact to the future of Debian. > > Although some of my questions may sounds redundant, I want to verify > these key points with all the candidates who wish to clarify his current > view. Please help me understand you.
Sure. :) > > When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our > > Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a > > balance between meeting the needs of those who would use Debian and > > the idealism of the Free Software movement that we emerged from. > Hey, this format looks familiar. ;-) > Do you agree above understanding of "Debian History"? (Bdale: skip this) > > [ ] Yes > [X] No > [ ] I do not know / No comment > Comment: I think Bdale's interpretation is inaccurate in that it appears to be conceiving of "Our Users" and "Free Software" as entities that are *fundamentally* in tension, thus the need for "balance". I do not find that to be the case. I think cases where our dedication to our users drives us to neglect Free Software, or vice versa, are the exception, not the rule. In general, I think "our users" and "Free Software" have a symbiotic relationship; thanks to our users, Free Software has an audience that helps it to grow and thrive. Thanks to Free Software, our users have choice and control over their computing environment. > > The most concrete example of this balance is the existence of non-free. > > Do you agree above understanding of "Debian History"? (Bdale: skip this) > > [ ] Yes (even if you want to change current situation in near future.) > [ ] No > [ ] I do not know / No comment > Comment: I cannot answer yes or no, as I feel it is a conclusion that follows from a misstated premise; see above. > What shall be done if there is a conflict between "user" and "freedom". > > [X] Freedom rules! > [ ] User rules! (I hope no one picks this.) > [ ] I do not know / No comment > [X] Seek amicable compromise > Comment: First, seek to broker a peace. If that fails, however, I think the majority of our users are better served by our preservation of their freedoms, rather than our abdication of them. > Do you think we need to change situation over non-free? > > [X] Yes (Within the next DPL term) > [X] Yes (Timeline is flexible) > [ ] Yes (After the next DPL term) > [ ] No > [ ] I do not know / No comment > Comment: As I said in my platform, I would like to see a more organized effort to gather the opinions of the developers, instead of just those who visibly participate in flamewars. I'd *like* this to happen during the next DPL term -- hopefully *my* term :) -- but I don't think forward progress on this issue is absolutely critical to the surivial of the Project. There are more important priorities, and I discussed them in my platform. > Do you think DPL needs to place its leadership to steer Debian on this > issue? > > [X] Yes (It is within DPL's scope of responsibility) > [ ] No (It is not within DPL's scope of responsibility) > [ ] I do not know / No comment > Comment: I have already expressed a few times my feeling that the DPL can and should "steer" the developers towards a more constructive and inclusive expression of what our intentions toward the non-free section really are, rather than letting a flamewar blow up every few months to 2 years that takes up a lot of people's time and energy. The DPL need not "steer" the developers towards a particular conclusion; rather, I see the DPL as helping to set parameters for the discussion and employ mechanisms to keep the discussion productive. > Please elaborate your thoughts for the forward path on SC#4 issue and > non-free issue with some time-line and milestones indicated as much as > comfortable. (I see some far-eastern fonts and other data packages are > one to suffer if non-free is killed immediately.) > > comment: I'd say that using rhetoric like "killed immedately" puts a slant into your survey. I've stated my thoughts for a forward path on the non-free issue several times now; please see my platform. On a personal level, I really don't see why using a non-official repository for things like fonts and data packages is such a mountain to climb, especially since packages that like benefit the *least* in practice from adjunct Debian resources like the Bug Tracking System. But, that *is* a personal opinion, and I know how to keep it separate from my official duties. (You don't see me making xfonts-base conflict with non-free font packages, do you? In fact, I did the initial packaging for xfonts-scalable-nonfree myself. :) ) -- G. Branden Robinson | When dogma enters the brain, all Debian GNU/Linux | intellectual activity ceases. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Anton Wilson http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
