On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:06:06AM +0200, Jaromil wrote: > > I think people here should perceive their own agency as that of > curators, not gatekeepers.
I don't think we are gatekeepers or curators. the GNU project provides practical recommendations for distributions for general public to use. it isn't helpful to recommend a dead distro (not when any active ones are available). > In case a proper curatorial activity is beyond your reach, I invite > you and colleagues to reconsider this position and limit this > initiative to review distributions that are 100% free. The definition > of "actively maintained" is too blurred and connects to other issues > and indicators that are debatable case-by-case and not even specified > in the 100% free definition. As a matter of fact many of the > distributions that are today considered 100% free would have never > made it, no matter how 100% free, useful and significant for people to > discover the free software movement they ever where. I'm sorry, I failed to parse: "would have never made it"... what does "it" refer to? "would have never made" if?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
