| Andrew Suffield 2005-01-27, 7:54 am |
| On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 01:26:15PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
>
>
> To me, debating the interpretation of the sentence "We will not hide
> problems" does make sense, and is not irrelevant. The intention behind
> that debate (namely, to address the question of transparency within the
> Debian project) seems even more relevant to me.
The definition of 'problems' is not appreciably relevant to this.
>
> I can't see how he tried to do such a reduction. People *do* have
> different opinions on transparency in Debian, and they do have different
> opinions regarding the question whether our Social Contract does say
> something about transparence in Debian. This is not a word game,
Playing with the definition of 'problems' is precisely that. There's
no ethical justification for it. Treating the sentence as an
independent law, and arguing about ambiguities in the way it is
phrased as if they were somehow important, is just word games -
especially when they're clearly nonsensical in context.
All the rational discussion has always been about what constitutes
'hiding', and the rational conclusion has always been the same:
actively hiding problems is clearly bad, but failing to go to the
trouble of documenting them isn't really, as you probably have better
things to do, and it's written into the constitution that developers
make their own decisions about what they spend their time on.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
|