Re: 1. RFD: Reorganization of the Debian Project

[Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@megabaud.fi>]

Dominik Kubla wrote:
> 
> 1. Issuing a formal charter for the Debian Project, defining the
>    goals of the project and the way to achive them.

This is the only point on which I agree.

I had my weekly sauna this evening and I dedicated this (too rare) rite
to ponder[1] upon Debian and the recent events. 

As Brian correctly pointed out, the project falled in a "lose-lose"
situation. 
The "scheduled release = don't procrastinate" argument is of primary
importance from the "business" point of view, the one from which CD
makers and large network/corporation look at Debian.
The "fix all the security holes" argument is of primary importance from
the developer's point of view.

If Debian were a corporation, or an organization headed by a "Board of
directors", a "Management Comitee", the first argument would have won,
but Debian is an amalgam[2], a collection of developers and the security
argument took the precedence.

While I agree with Ian's arguments, I think it's a suicide to deceive
the expectations of the "business" market. We can't any more do that,
while we are not allowed to distribute a release with security bugs.

So, what could be a solution?
Well, even if this can appear foolish, I suggest that Debian should give
up releasing distributions.

We have a great bug-tracking system; we can extend it to become a full
test-tracking system, and use it to formalize the "correctness" of each
package (or related group of packages), in the purpose of having a
countinous flow from unstable[3] to stable (once a week, for example,
like the move from Incoming to unstable).

We should add to dselect[4] the possibility to select a predefined list
of chooses, and then leave to each distributor the responsibility to
create/organize his list(s). We could supply some installation-lists in
the ftp site, as examples.

In this way we could even let one of these become the "official"
distributor, leaving him the responsibility of _when_ burn the CDs and
of _what_ put in the installation-lists that will go with the CD.

The resposibility of what will move from unstable to stable will remain
firmly in our hands, without hurting the needs of the distributors.

I think that this could be a way to avoid these situations in the
future, without losing our characters.


ciao,
Fabrizio
--

[1] At this latitude sauna is a wonderful place in which to think
   (ajatelmo=pensatoio, sorry, I don't know the english word)

[2] I like very much this (dis)organization, and I like even more the
fact that our leader(s) devote himself to help casual users, instead
than using the leash to impose his point of view.

[3] As someone else pointed out, unstable in the last months seemed to
be more stable (and less buggy) than stable-fixed.

[4] Or to another installer, if it will ever come to life.

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| e-mail: fpolacco@megabaud.fi    fpolacco@debian.org         |
| http://megabaud.fi/~fpolacco/   Join the UKI Linux Project! |
| fingerprint 70 1A 72 2D 2B C8 A5 63 7A C2 CC E0 2A 54 AE DA |
| finger: fpolacco@megabaud.fi    fpolacco@master.debian.org  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com