El 02/12/23 a las 01:07, Bill Allombert escribió: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:36:29PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:07:29PM +0100]: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 09:25:17AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > > > This is also something we discussed before sending this call for > > > > votes. But how can we gauge whether the project is OK with issuing > > > > political statements or not? The only tool we were able to find is a > > > > GR. > > > > > > The less we know about the political opinion of each others, the better for > > > the project. After all we only agreed to uphold the SC and nothing else. > > > > > > We are a technical entity. We do not need to know other developers opinions on > > > issues unrelated to FLOSS to work together, and let us face it, it is easier to > > > work together if we ignore whether we have major political disagreement. Yet, one of the goals of the proposed text is to minimize the negative impact of this particular EU policy on FLOSS projects and the related technical work. > > Yet, my belief is that all human interactions are political in > > nature. In some aspects of politics, you and I will not be the least > > aligned. But I believe our project is _first and foremost_ a political > > statement (that produces a first-grade technological artifact). +1! > > One major risk for Debian continued existence is that we start to become > suspicious of each other political views outside FLOSS, that we start to see > "collaborating with someone as part of our Debian activity" as "associating" > with them, and that "associating" with them start to become socially > problematic. There is a precedent for that. On the other hand, I have experience successfully working in a professional level with people that I would place in the other side of the one-dimensional political spectrum. > That is why I am quite against the whole 'community' view of Debian. We are a large community, and it is obvious we disagree at different points, political and technical. And that doesn't prevent us to keep working together, with obvious obstacles and etc. But that is still part of the "working together". This is not saying we have to think in the same way, of course. The only common ground is that we all agreed (at least "new" new members) to uphold the Social Contract (which, as its name state, **social**) the DFSG, et al. > In practice, it is very hard to participate in such GR without revealing > political views, as you can see by reading the discussion. > > > > And it is quite difficult discussing a ballot option without revealing such > > > opinions. We have enough topics for flamewar already. This will only leads > > > to more fracturation of the project. > > > > > > But this GR is not about issuing political statements in general, it is about > > > issuing a particular statement, which leads directly to the second issue, are > > > GR (with the time limit, the amendment process, etc) the best medium to draft > > > political statement that correctly addresses the issue while furthering Debian > > > goal ? > > > > I do not know. But I think that's something that can, and ought, be > > put to the table. > > It seems like you are underestimating the risks and overestimating the rewards. > Such statement is only useful if written by people that understand enough of > EU law terminology to address the issue. I asked whether the lawyer that drafted > it was familiar with EU law and it does not seem to be the case. What makes you state this? As far as I case, the lawyer who drafted the statement knows well the EU regulations and legislation proceedings. > We should not make a statement that can be used against us.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature