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: Splitting Debian into two projects

bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens)  wrote on 25.03.97 in <m0w9kZD-00Idf6C@golem.pixar.com>:

> OK. Here's my attempt to resolve the current Debian battle.
>
> Debian will split into two projects. One will have leadership as
> democratic as you like. One will go back to the old benevolent
> dictatorship (or non-benevolent if that's how you feel) that we
> had until January 8. Which one gets called Debian is not clear to
> me at this point, but perhaps Ian Murdock should decide, it's his
> name.

> I will take on the "benevolent dictatorship" version of the project.
> This project will be run as a _strictly_ free software project - all

Umm.

I think there are some problems with this concept.

For one, remember that PGP is in non-US. It's freeness is certainly in  
doubt.

It's not the only thing, but it's probably the most important thing.



As to the democratic thing, I wasn't on private when the voting was, so  
I've actually seen nothing of the democratic process. I've only seen the  
constant flaming on the lists. If this really was caused by the former,  
then abandoning that is clearly good, though I can't tell if it is.

In any case, I haven't seen a positive effect that I could attribute to  
this democratic thing in the project. Has anyone else?

Whatever. What we *absolutely must stop* is getting "Ok, the end of Debian  
has come" every two weeks. Otherwise, one of these will be the truth.



In any case, what I did like about the project, in the time, say, from 1.1  
to 1.2, was the way you could see how decisions were made. First, there  
was some discussion on devel. Sometimes, there was consensus and that was  
it. At other times, consensus didn't happen, and then the boss (or someone  
he had delegated) stepped in and made the decision.

It didn't always work perfectly, but it worked rather well overall.

I believe that this is the model we need.

I *also* believe that we need a way to handle not-completely-free stuff.  
With the plans for hamm, I thought we had finally got a working solution;  
I'd really hate to see that abandoned.

Any stuff that we can put in the distribution is still a whole lot more  
free than, say, Microsoft BackOffice.

So maybe I can't sell it on CDs. Tough. I wasn't going to sell CDs anyway.

I certainly agree that GNU/MIT/BSD-type free is better. I just don't agree  
that any other type of free is worthless.

MfG Kai