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. <ballo...@debian.org> > > Imagine a large red swirl here. > --
