On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:53:09 +0000, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:27:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> Could you tell me about the plan for dealing with contrib and
>> non-free?
> The plan is for somebody else (ie, not Debian) to deal with them, if
> they actually care. I have no interest in them, so it's not my plan.
>> For example, if I see a real and inclusive effort to set up a
>> separate "project" to maintain and support contrib and non-free --
>> one we could perhaps link to from distrib/netinst (one I could
>> join, if I so desired) clause 5 from the social contract (thus
>> allowing this hypothetical "other project" to take over contrib and
>> non-free).
> It sounds like you are saying "I will support the removal of
> non-free if the people who do not want to support non-free do the
> work to continue supporting it". That seems to be missing the point,
> to me.
I think you are missing the point. I think the idea is that if
*somehow*, it is feasible to support software that fails to meet the
DFSG, but is deemed useful enough to be packaged by a Debian
developer (ie, someone who has agreed to the social contract), then I
(raul) would support this resolution.
The opponents of the non-free packages do not have to do this
work. But some votes would be garnered by the proposal were this work
done; is all. You may chose to ignore this statement if you wish,
especially if you think you have no need for the votes of such
people.
> The point is that perhaps the majority of project members no longer
> wish to include or support non-free. Apparently you are not a part
> of this group, from your comments so far. We've been trying to
> figure out whether or not this is the case (by voting on it) for
> about three years now.
Ah. If all this GR is a trial baloon to see the level of
support the non-free packages have, ok. If you want to actually
remove non-free from debian machines, and you wish the GR to actually
pass, then well, it would well behoove you to woo people on the
fence.
Yes, there is no need for you to heed my advice.
> This is not about restructuring, or increasing the division between
> Debian and non-free; this is "Do we, as a project, want to support
> non-free? [y/n]". You answer appears to be "Yes [but I wouldn't mind
> if we called it something else]".
My answer, at this point, is likely to be a qualified maybe
(speaking for myself). This is not an issue that lends itself to
black and white solutions (from my perspective).
> I see no point in responding to your concerns that relate directly
> to how you would answer this question (since I'm not particularly
> interested in convincing people either way; other people might want
> to advance some arguments about why we should or shouldn't support
> non-free) - you can vote when the ballot goes out. It's not a "brush
> off", per se, it's that I'm not concerned how you vote - just that
> people can understand what the proposal does and does not do.
Hmm. This is unusual,as far as voting goes, since in the
majority of votes in my experience the proponents or the opponents of
the motion had an actual interest in the outcome, and tended to try
and convince the fence sitters.
But since at this point I am marginally opposed to you
proposition, I am not complaining. By all means refuse to try and
convince people to try and support your proposition; at the moment,
that suits me just fine.
manoj
--
It is not every question that deserves an answer. Publilius Syrus
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
