>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> No-one should be asked to interact with a non-free service, as Ian> part of contributing to Debian. Ian> Note I say "no-one should be asked". It is not enough, for me, Ian> for there to be a "plan (b)" route. Ie, it is not OK for a Ian> maintainer to advertise a github repo as preferred, or to ask Ian> for PRs on github, even if an alternative or mirror, or Salsa, Ian> or the BTS are also advertised. Ian> This is for two reasons: firstly, this is a matter of Ian> principle. Our mission is free software. Free software needs Ian> free tools. We should not be advertising or encouraging the Ian> use of non-free tools. I agree that many people in the project want us to work hard to avoid encouraging non-free tools. I agree that's a significant consideration. Ian> Secondly, there is a practical problem if a maintainer (even a Ian> solo maintainer) chooses to regard a nonfree service as Ian> primary. If another person comes along and wants to help out Ian> with that package, they will either have to also tolerate using Ian> the nonfree service, or they will have to try to persuade the Ian> maintainer to abandon their existing hosting or tools (and Ian> maybe the maintainer's existing workflow, if the nonfree tools Ian> are significantly different). For me that is wholly Ian> unacceptable. I agree that this can be a consequence of using non-free tools. I believe those involved in the discussions around this issue have considered this consequence. >> If the use of a non-free service is preventing an active member >> of our community from contributing to a team, the team should >> work to find a solution so that member can contribute >> effectively. Ian> This is no good as an answer. Ian> In practice imprecations to a team (or a maintainer) to "find a Ian> solution so that a Debian contributor can contribute Ian> effectively" will be useless because: Ian> (i) Even having to ask this question already makes the new Ian> contributor seem awkward, puts them at a social disadvantage, Ian> and perhaps annoys people. Ian> (ii) We lack workable enforcement mechanisms for this kind of Ian> imprecation. (Because we lack *any* workable enforcement Ian> mechanisms to deal with obstructive maintainer behaviours.) Ian> (iii) Even if everyone has good will, and or even if we had Ian> excellent and proportionate and swift enforcement mechanism, Ian> there will inevitably be a delay and hassle and friction. I agree that these are problems you can run into. Ian> ... >> Using non-free services for Debian packaging is not recommended >> but is permitted. Ian> I strongly disagree with this, or at least, with what seems to Ian> me to be the obvious implication. It is also contrary to our Ian> current practice. Unfortunately, I believe you are in the rough when judging rough consensus on this issue. This was discussed fairly recently on debian-project; my take is that Thomas Goirand represented a position roughly the same as your own. My reading of that discussion is that: 1) there are significant problems we'd run into if we forbid non-free tools in Debian work 2) There was not sufficient support in that discussion to do so anyway 3) There are significant problems that come up when non-free tools are used. The problems enumerated were similar to the problems you describe above. More over your claim that this is not our current practice runs counter to facts. Of the 26,480 packages in my unstable sources with a vcs-git, 1836 are on github. 7% seems much more consistent to me with "NOT Recommended" than "forbidden." I think you would take exception if I said that dgit (940 packages in my unstable sources--about half the github count) ran counter to current practice. Yes, that is comparing apples to oranges on a number of levels. My point is that there is a significant fraction of our developers who do use github and that it seems to be a current practice. That said, I'm really confused that your message didn't get any response before now. Considering how sharp some of the responses were on -project, I don't know how to take this. Were people not responding because the -project discussion was so recent, they didn't see a need to rehash it? Were people not responding because -devel has a very different audience and everyone here agrees with you? In terms of next steps. I'd recommend that you read the -project discussion. Your arguments here are not responsive to several of the counters brought up in that discussion. Obviously you may disagree with the trade offs expressed, but it would be valuable for you to consider the points made in that discussion. Even so, based on that discussion and the active use of github, my take is that we do not have a rough consensus to forbid non-free services. In addition, there are substantial unaddressed concerns that would need a response before we could have an informed rough consensus to forbid non-free services even if we had sufficient support. Even if there is not rough consensus to forbid non-free services, I'd welcome help documenting the concerns that can come up. --Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature