Hello, I'd like to know the candidate's opinion on the following questions. They can either be processed here or during the irc-debate (but I don't know if I can make it for the debate physically).
For the following points, I'd like to know whether the candidates think this particular thing/issue/question lies in the scope of the DPL, and if yes, whether they have an opinion about it or how they would cope with it: - Debian did have stronger ties to the FSF in the past. Maybe it is time to think about our relationsship with the FSF and try to cooperate/communicate more with the FSF in places where it might be appropriate, like licensing issues, documentation, contact to the GNU-tools developer etc. (of course, this could only work on a peer to peer basis, and would not neccessarily include RMS) - The Linux Standard Base is an important effort for the future of Linux IMHO. I consider it important that we are as compliant as possible, without giving up our identity. This would probably mean coordination between developers and also includes the question whether we should include updates for better LSB-compliance into stable point releases alongside security updates (if there are any, and they are acceptable) - Inclusion of NetBSD (or any other BSD) and the Hurd need cooperation between the respective developers, the archive maintainers and the dpkg authers, as far as I can tell. Especially for the Hurd, my feeling is that its developers have become quite embittered during the last years because of lack of support by the rest of Debian. Some talking and motivation behind the scenes might have a positive effect, in my humble opinion. - There are quite a few developers who are either MIA or left the project for various reasons in the past. In some cases the situation might have changed in the meantime and it might be worth trying to reinvite them into the project, but I wouldn't know which delegate would be responsible for something like this. - I've read the -private archives of '96 and early '97 lately and I had the impression that there was a lot more discussion (and flow) about formal stuff in Debian back then than now. Maybe it is time to rethink about the constitution and see if some modifications would better match the project in its current state? I'm sorry if some points show a lack of insight on my part, I did not have the time to research each point extensively. thanks for your attention, Michael
pgpv91RsUxAMv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
