The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Debian needs you

> : I know I don't have the time or skills to lead Debian.  But somebody
> : please step up.  I think there would be a lot of support for the
> : "moderate view".
> 
> Can you help me understand what you mean by "moderate view" in this context?
> 
> Is it your belief that the policy of having the main distribution contain
> only software that meets the DFSG should change?  
> 
> If not, I completely agree with the notion that we can and should be 
> essentially neutral as an organization on things like the KDE/Debian disk...
> while tolerating/supporting the rights of everyone involved, *including* our
> leader, to publicly express their personal opinions on such things.
> 
> I believe that it would be disasterous for us to relax the requirement that 
> the main distribution comply with the DFSG, and equally disasterous to elect 
> as leader someone who could even contemplate suggesting we do so.

Hi.

Surely we must have the criteria for the software being eligible to be
included into the main distribution. And let's call those criteria DFSG.
But let's understand that DFSG is not a bible. DFSG serves some goals, and
the means of attaining these goals may and should change as time goes by.

Another question is our relationships with non-DFSG compliant software.
Treating it as an enemy is plain *wrong*. And this is the most frustrating
(for me) part of the dogmatic approach we happend to wittness recently.

> When I signed on as a package maintainer for Debian (it sure seems like it was
> a *long* time ago), the "gang of three" who were central to making Debian 
> happen were Ian Murdock, Ian Jackson, and Bruce Perens (in no particular 
> order).  If I didn't think they were reasonable people with whom I shared much 
> commonality of opinion about software, I wouldn't have signed on.  I may 
> embarrass them by saying so, but in my opinion, anyone who finds themselves 
> *fundamentally at odds* with the philosophies and actions of Bruce and/or 
> IanJ should question why they're participating in Debian.

And most probably they can answer that question. And surely I can answer
that question for myself: because Debian seems to be technically superior
distribution, highly available ("free"), with open development in which
you yourself can participate and contribute to the project. 

And I still want to see Debian the same way: technically superior,
highly available, and open. I only prefer healthy and a little bit
more flexible approach in attaining these goals.

Thanks.

Alex Y.

-- 
   _ 
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .