Quoting Reinhard Tartler (2026-01-30 14:10:11) > On 2026-01-30 06:13, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > [...] I have issues with your last question which I will raise as a > > general question to debian-project - and to avoid it being mistaken as > > a personal issue (which it very much isn't), I will clarify my concrete > > reflections here and keep that other post more general. > > Sounds good, thanks. > > >> This package depends on at least 3 package not currently in Debian: > >> python3-chevron, python3-diffenator2, python3-gftools-, > >> python3-ufomerge. Why is that? Are those dependencies an oversight or > >> intentional? > >> > >> Note that python3-gftools- looks suspicious, can you please clarify > >> why > >> that is? > >> > >> I note that the debian/ packaging is under a different license than > >> the > >> actual package. Usually the packaging follows the usptream license for > >> simpliciy. What's the reason for diverging here? > > > > Why do you ask? I mean, is it part of the scope of your investigation > > to question how I choose to license my contributions to Debian, also > > when my choice is compliant with the DFSG? Which Debian Policy do this > > quetion concern? If none, and your question is tied to some unwritten > > golden rule, then how am I able to avoid burdening future > > investiongations, given that I cannot read your minds and you operate > > from unwritten rules? > > The questions aim at helping me form an opinion on the matter. They do > not reflect written or unwritten policy. > > > This last question of yours made me hesitate replying at all: I felt > > that I was being unreasonably pressured to defend my choice of > > licensing - that your role as gatekeeper for getting my work approvied > > into Debian caused your personal opinions on what licensing choices are > > "better" would unfairly bias mine. So I stuck my head in the sand and > > waited for that danger to go away. And happily it did: The package got > > approved. > > No, those questions weren't related to approval or rejection, they came > from genuine curiosity. Going forward, I'll ask these questions in a > separate, private email conversation to make it easier to distinguish > what's part of the process and what's not.
I don't think it is necessary to keep some conversations non-public. I mean, what triggered my unease was not that our conversation was public and I therefore was held accountable for all that I uttered, but instead the uncertainty of how devastating consequences might be from how I responded. Obviously my concerns here are distorted by a period of long processing times for the NEW queue, but I can imagine similarly some contributers being less confident (or stubborn?) than me and even in a period of smooth processing times still get affected by "inquisitative" (i.e. as impressed despite unintented) questions. Asking the questions privately might feel more comfortable, but at the same time hold _you_ less accountable - again, as a feeling despite good intentions. I do appreciate that some contributors, especially newcomers, may find it more comfortable with private conversations, but that, I think, is indepenent of these concerns about accountability. In short, I think the best approach here is to stay on record, but be more explicit in what are the scopes of questions raised (as in, imagine the receipient being nervous, maybe for no good reason). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
