Dear fellow DDs,
2015-11-10 18:55 GMT+04:00 Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Call for moderation and mediation: debian-live vs. debian-live-ng"):
>> Daniel's relationship with the project have not been good
> This is of course very relevant background. (I myself have been
> strongly critical of some things Daniel has done.)
> However, calling something "foo-ng" without the consent of the author
> and present maintainer of "foo" is an extremely hostile act. (And
> that doesn't depend on whether the maintainer of "foo" is a full DD or
> what.) It is also completely unnecessary in almost all cases.
> I think in this case that choice of name was gratuitously aggressive,
> and inexcusable. Iain says that this choice of name wasn't intended
> that way. Perhaps so. But when Iain and Neil were asked to please
> choose a different name, their response to Daniel's very reasonable
> request was to dig their heels in rather than seek accomodation.
> Daniel's reaction to being rebuffed is unfortunate. Maybe someone
> other than Daniel would have had a more measured reaction. But I
> think what was done was quite a severe provocation.
> For once, Daniel is not in the wrong.
>  Consider what our collective response would be to an external
> group to setting up a project they are calling "Debian-NG". We would
> be sending in our lawyers to nuke the site from orbit.
I would be very proud to be part of a project which could step back,
admit that taking over the "live" name this way was a mistake and
find a name which would not offend the Debian Live project which served
At least this is what I would do, and I would do it quickly.
PS: I have read the reasoning why debian-live was suboptimal in many
ways but those do not really matter here.