In article <[email protected]>, Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > An unofficial motto for Debian (unofficial because it is not part of our > foundation documents) is "the universal Operating System". ... > 1) So, if you were asked to write a Social Contract paragraph about our > universality, defining/outlining both what we aim for, and also maybe > some limits to that quest for universality, what would it be?
This is a very interesting line of questioning. It seems a point of conflict in the project. I was wanting to ask something similar. > 2) More specifically, if you believe that we should not aim for being > fully universal, *how* (in terms of decision-making processes) do you > think that we should draw a line about what's acceptable, I would like to reframe this question: When should we expect a Debian maintainer to put in effort for use cases, software designs, hardware platforms, etc., that they don't personally care about ? I have an answer to this: So long as most of the work is being done by those who are interested in the use case, maintainers (and anyone else with a gatekeeper role) should do their bit (by carrying patches, mentioning alternative dependencies, advising about debugging, or whatever). DPL candidates: do you agree ? Thanks, Ian.
