(Not speaking on behalf of ctte)

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 09:05:08PM +0000, [email protected] 
wrote:

> The maintainer, Jeremy Bícha, has declined to address the core issue,
> that a default-enabled fundraising notification violates Debian Social
> Contract Clause 4: "We will be guided by the needs of our users and
> free software community. We will place their interests first." 
> 
> This feature imposes an external agenda (GNOME Foundation fundraising)
> without user consent, undermining user autonomy and Debian’s ethical
> foundation. It is not a minor usability concern, but a policy and
> philosophical violation, analogous to Bug #964359 (SMPlayer donation
> nag), which was patched out due to reputational risk.

Clause 4 says "We will be guided by the needs of our users and *the free 
software community*", and also goes on to describe specific ways in 
which we will satisfy those needs. So, firstly, I don't thing reading a 
subsection of clause 4 is helpful - it needs to be read in the context 
of the entire clause. But secondly, it does not prioritise users over 
the free software community at large. If a portion of the community 
requires funding to continue their work, is removing a request for 
donations not denying their needs? It's also not clear to me how 
different this is from the citation request in GNU Parallel, or why this 
is clearly something that has any impact on our user needs at all. Some 
users may prefer not to see the request, but some users would prefer 
that a lot of the software we ship acts in different ways, and we have 
certainly never felt that there's an obligation on the maintainer to 
satisfy those preferences.

I don't see a clear violation of the social contract or policy here, and 
so right now would not be inclined to overrule the maintainer. If you 
feel that policy is failing to embody a clear reading of the social 
contract and that donation requests should be banned from Debian in 
general, the appropriate way to handle this is likely to propose changes 
to policy and build broad consensus for that change to be implemented.

Reply via email to