Gianfranco Costamagna dijo [Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 09:07:22AM +0000]:
Hello, Gunnar, thanks for the answer. Which of these questions you think belong to DPL role? They might belong to CTTE, Gars but I don't think they still belong to DPL...Sorry for top posting, my Android MUA doesn't allow me to properly quote things Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Now _that_ is a brave advertisement for Yahoo Mail! FWIW, I didn't know it was still a thing π Thing is, probably they are not DPL-related. The reason I answered is that I don't believe them to be Technical Committee-related. The examples were proposed by you π GW> The first one (whether DDs who are also Ubuntu Devs should clearly separate GW> their actions under their different tasks) is clearly a social issue, not a GW> technical one, so CTTE has no say in it. This is not something the DPL should tackle, nor the Technical Committee. Is there a specific conflict you have in mind? If it is just for the general issue of having different yardsticks with which to measure one's activity, I would leave it to the judgement of each of the DD/DMs or UbuntuDs in question. Of course, if (just picking a random UbuntuD name, I'm sure he won't mind -- and it's not a credible acusation π) Julian decided apt should search for available snaps and install them instead of fetching the right deb packages... Yes, Technical Committee would probably overrule the apt maintainer. GW> The second one, "should Debian and Ubuntu collaborate via snaps" β If I GW> understand correctly, the question should be, "should Debian provision so GW> it's easy to install snaps in your clean Debian system". And that roughly GW> translates to, "is there a DD who has enough motivation to make the Snap GW> ecosystem work in Debian?" So, as long as the Snap ecosystem does not have a GW> frontal collision to the way we handle Debian (i.e. policy violations, GW> forced binary name clashes or whatnot), it's also not in the Technical GW> Committee's sphere. Again, I'm replying to a hypothetical situation you presented as something that the DPL would not take care of, and should leave in the hands of the Technical Comittee. I just said, "it's not the TC who should intervene in that hypothetical situation". And yes, as Julian already answered β this has already happened, and the TC has not complained. GW> Third, the Technical Committee has no say regarding licenses. Of course, if GW> somebody were to propose to replace gcc for clang in build-essential, or to GW> remove coreutils from Priority:required and add uutils, TC would probably be GW> invoked and have a say. But right now, we are so far away from such a GW> possibility that I don't think the Committee should be invoked in any of the GW> points raised in this mail. Well, I don't see Debian hastily migrating from coreutils to uutils, but it _could_ happen in due time. I don't see it as legally challenging (so no, it would not be for ftpmasters to decide -- both licenses are perfectly free). But replacing packages that are so central is usually a ripe topic for a project-wide debate, that could either be solved via a GR, or βas I said in the quoted messageβ the TC could be invoked for it. But not because the project were migrating a core tool to a non-copylefted license β this would be, I guess, due to stability and compatibility compromises we keep and whatnot. Still, for this I'm over-futurizing. β Gunnar.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
