On 21. 11. 15 15:05, Micha Lenk wrote:
On 21/11/15 14:53, Andrew Shadura wrote:
I don't know what you guys think about it, but having read a bunch of
comments to the ‘news’ articles on this topic in multiple languages I
see that mostly the ‘news’ present this as aggression of one of the
Debian teams to a leader of a project, and comments are mostly ‘Debian
people are such arseholes’.
And I fully understand this impression the situation has created in
outsiders' minds, because they've got no context at all what has
happened inside of Debian project. We need to give the context, I think.
Because as it is now, we do indeed look bad. Some action is required, I
believe.
The root cause for this discrepancy is some lack of transparency of the
Debian project. So, in my opinion the only sane action that could fix
this discrepancy is to work on the root cause, i.e. to make (not
explicitly exempted parts of) this discussion on debian-private public,
better sooner than later. At least I consider the discussion here on
debian-private quite balanced, and I am convinced that it would
definitely help to improve the public perception of how the Debian
project dealt with the situation.
Almost 10 years ago the Debian project decided in a GR to publish all
messages on debian-private after a period of 3 years[1]. For almost 10
years we fail to execute the GR. Maybe the recent events around
debian-live could motivate someone of us to finally come up with a
suitable work flow.
Cheers,
Micha
1. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPrivateDeclassification
Thinking about this slightly latterally. wikipedia lists a number of
history of computing museums, several of which are online:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_museum
Maybe one of them would be interested on taking on this work. Or maybe
they would have academic contacts interested in taking on this work.
This would not strictly fulfil the criteria requiring that they be DD's
but they could be given DD status as part of the process, perhaps in
recognition of the effort involved. And obviously they would need to
sign a non disclosure agreement. It also would not solve the ongoing
problem of keeping upto the 3 year time limit, but it might make that
problem solvable.
|
|
