Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Debian's New Project Leader
With the recent news that Anthony Towns will be taking over as the Debian Project Leader, Linux.com took a few minutes to sit down and feel out the new DPL-elect. From the interview: "The immediate plan is to organize the various ideas I've had so that I can work out which ones are actually worth working on, and what order to do them in; and to make sure that all the people who volunteered to be DPL during the campaign, or offered their help don't go away without some good ideas about extra things they can do. "
In my opinion, the combination of Debian+Ubuntu is simply "the best" right now. I went from Debian to Ubuntu on my laptop about a year ago, and recently installed Ubuntu on my new AMD64 box.
:-/) on my new AMD64 box, and best of all it's based on Debian. Also, they take a principled stand (IMHO) against closed-source software, but are more pragmatic in terms of offering closed-source packages while alternatives are developed.
Ubuntu is very stable, installed *almost* flawlessly (NVidia
Plus, Ubuntu and Debian devs interact a lot as far as I can tell, so Ubuntu is contributing to the improvement of Debian to a significant degree.
The way I see it:
* Debian is a super-stable FLOSS-only server OS
* Ubuntu is its almost-as-stable up-to-the-minute desktop OS
Neither of them is "the best" alone, but the combined strengths of the two are a knockout in my opinion.
My bicyles
I am not happy with an ftpmaster as new project leader. They were the cause why the last one gave up.
It's an interesting paradox. A member of "the Debian cabal" was elected DPL. Personally I voted for none of the above since all of the candidates this year seemed resigned to the idea that the DPL has no power. The DPL does have power under the Debian constitution to appoint and replace delegates, but past DPLs have given in to the idea that there are no delegates...that the ftp-masters, DAM, etc are unaccountable to the DPL and by extension the Debian project as a whole.
In some ways it's a good thing that the DPL can't assert any real authority over other members of the project, but it also makes the DPL election a silly waste of time and energy and runs counter to a plain reading of the Debian constitution. If the DPL is a powerless and symbolic title we might as well make Ian Murdock, Bruce Perens or some other recognizable individual DPL for life and stop with the silly elections.
Anthony's platform was more active than the other potential DPL's, but it included plenty of caviats to indicate that ultimately he'll follow the tradition of doing very little with the position. For instance:
Another issue was that of "supporting delegates". As it turns out, that's perhaps an overly limited description, since a number of roles, including the security team and ftpmaster, might be better thought of as "infrastructure maintainers" instead, which implies a different relationship to the DPL.
And:
Some of the goals I hope to work towards in the coming year include getting updates accepted into the archive more frequently than once a day, having frequent beta releases of etch/testing that we can legitimately call a release (benefiting from the ongoing work of the installer and testing-security teams), and having reliably quick resolution of RC bugs in unstable. None of those require, or even necessarily benefit from magical DPL powers; but I think the project will benefit if whoever is elected DPL takes that idea on board, and sets a good example at making frequent and improvements to Debian.
For me, these simply aren't compelling reasons to elect a DPL. OTOH, Anthony's platform was better than what the other candidates offered.