Re: Need debian lenny source code

[Paul Wise]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:

> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
> me.

Others have answered your question but I would like to point out that
Debian lenny is obsolete and no longer receives security updates. I
suggest that you should upgrade to Debian wheezy as soon as possible.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fouk8s5a44ip9o0xfucenjf9noxdh543dcnrodyym...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Need debian lenny source code

[Simon Paillard]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:04:29AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> > I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> > some operation purpose. 
> 
> You can put the following in your sources.list to be able to "apt-get
> source " on a Lenny system:
> 
> deb-src http://archive.debian.org/debian lenny main

Note you can also search old packages at:
http://archive.debian.net/ then use the relevant links to source,
binaries etc.

-- 
Simon Paillard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131213213745.gc15...@mraw.org

Re: Need debian lenny source code

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

Hi Venkatesh,

On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote:
> I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
> some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
> download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
> me.

You can put the following in your sources.list to be able to "apt-get
source " on a Lenny system:

deb-src http://archive.debian.org/debian lenny main


Cheers,
Thijs


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/97c8df20a90a24a251e3c5a43cae6848.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl

Need debian lenny source code

[Venkatesh Pawar]

Hi Sir,
I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for
some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i
download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help
me.

Thanking you,

Venkatesh Pawar.

Re: Reg: Debian Lenny 5.03

[Teemu Likonen]

* 2010-08-06 14:42 (+0530), Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque wrote:

> I was searching for Debian Lenny 5.03 CD/DVD in your website, but
> couldn't find any. Can you please redirect me to appropriate link from
> where I can download Debian Lenny 5.03 iso.

The latest Debian Lenny release (or rather: update) is 5.0.5. You can
find it here:

http://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/#stable

Choose your processor architecture from the page. Most likely it will be
i386, amd64 or powerpc (but you know better of course).

If you can install most of Debian through Internet consider using
smaller net install ISO image instead:

http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/#netinst-stable

-- 
Feel free to Cc me your replies if you want to make sure I'll notice
them. I can't read all the list mail.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mxt0x784@mithlond.arda

Reg: Debian Lenny 5.03

[Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque]

Hi,
 I was searching for Debian Lenny 5.03 CD/DVD in your website, but couldn't
find any. Can you please redirect me to appropriate link from where I can
download Debian Lenny 5.03 iso.

Thank You.

Regards,
Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque

Re: problems regarding the configuration of adsl modem and usb modem for gprs in debian 5.03 lenny

[Eric Dantan Rzewnicki]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:02:50AM +, brendon fernandes wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> I am Brendon from India and have a problem regarding the internet connection 
> in
> debian 5.03 lenny,I tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really
> can get to the exact point.when I try using it by putting in the provider
> username and the password nothing helps. I also used the pppoeconfig available
> . Can you please help me as I really like using debian since it helps me in
> programming. I cannot connect to my broadband network as well as from my 
> mobile
> phone(Nokia) gprs.Hope you will do the needful.
> My email id is cyberbr...@hotmail.com

Hi Brendon,

These types of problems are better discussed on the debian-user list:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/

-Eric Rz.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

problems regarding the configuration of adsl modem and usb modem for gprs in debian 5.03 lenny

[brendon fernandes]

Dear Sir,

 

I am
Brendon from India
and have a problem regarding the internet connection in debian 5.03 lenny,I
tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really can get to the exact 
point.when
I try using it by putting in the provider username and the password nothing 
helps.
I also used the pppoeconfig available . Can you please help me as I really like
using debian since it helps me in programming. I cannot connect to my broadband
network as well as from my mobile phone(Nokia) gprs.Hope you will do the 
needful.

 

My email id
is cyberbr...@hotmail.com

 

Best
Regards

 

Brendon
Fernandes

  
_
Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
http://windows.microsoft.com/shop

Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

[Matthew Johnson]

Dear all,

The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the
constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is
'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come up
again. To avoid overloading -project I'd like to move the initial discussion
somewhere else. If you are interested in developing the ballot options for
this, please follow up on -vote. We'll move back to -project when there are
more firm suggestions.

I'm going to try and outline what I think are the issues and relevant factions.
Please use this as a starting point for finding out where there are
disagreements and what points of view people have in order to construct a clear
ballot. We're not aiming to decide what is the right answer in the discussion,
we are aiming to decide what is the right question and so I hope the discussion
can remain polite.

Because we have disagreements about whether or not supermajority is required, I
would like all of these votes to explicitly amend the constitution in all
options, so it is completely clear. After the first vote that may not matter
for the rest, of course and this is why I would like this vote to be the first
one to run.

Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'

When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents, but
doesn't explicitly amend it; does this count as amending it? If it does not,
then how is this reconciled with the fact that we have just agreed to do
something which would contravene our own foundation documents?

Positions (in no particular order):

- The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it 
doesn't
  matter what the difference is.
- Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that
  specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always 
needs
  3:1.
- Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual 
delegates/
  developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they 
see
  fit.
- The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG
  issues if it's needed for things to work.
- Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes 
do
(and slightly orthogonal, but:)
   - Ballots which are ambiguous about resolving the clash between them
 and a FD should be rejected and not run.

Constitutional/FD interpretations

Someone sometimes will need to interpret the constitution or other FDs, however
well we word it (but I think where we find disagreements/ambiguities we should
then fix them)

Positions:

- Secretary does it
- DPL does it
- some other group (eg the TC does it)
- The DD making the relevant decision does it

Release team vs DFSG issues

DFSG applies to sid. If it's there and no-one has removed it, the RT can
snapshot the archive at any point for the release. DFSG or other RC bugs; it's
up to them whether to ignore them. This is possibly a subset of the above two
items, however, I think it's important enough to warrant being explicitly
specified.

Positions:

- RT can snapshot releases whenever and ignore whatever bugs they like
- If it's not a regression there's no problem, we're still improving,
  there's no point in delaying releases for it.
- No, the release is what counts, transitive problems in sid less so, 
but we
  mustn't release with DFSG problems

I'm sure there are other related positions I've missed off too.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2009-02-15 00:08:44, schrieb Martin Meredith:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
> 
> I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on 
> message id :D

???  --  You are using mutt!

~B 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com

Multipe folders can be searched from a macro...

Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
   
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
+49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature

Post-Lenny discussions

[Matthew Johnson]

Firstly, Yay Release [0]!!!

Congrats to everyone, and particular to those people who have been up
all night making this happen.

Since Lenny has now been released I just wanted to briefly touch on the
discussions which were postponed, so people know they are not being
forgotten. As dato said[1], we should do a bit of scheduling around them
so as not to overload people. 

Most importantly though, we should ignore them for another few weeks so
that people can get some good hacking done and do everything else
they've been putting off because of the freeze.

So, could people email dato and myself if you want to start a large
discussion so we can make sure people don't double up and we don't
overload everyone by trying to discuss everything at once. We're also
trying to keep track of this on the wiki[2], so updating that is also
good.

Everyone else, get hacking, break unstable, make all the uploads you've
been putting off for the last few monnths!

Matt

0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2009/msg2.html
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/01/msg00132.html
2. http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!


Martin Meredith schrieb:

>> / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com
>> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.
> Which I believe only searches in the current folder, so it's not exactly that 
> useful.

Take a look at the grepmail package.  IIRC it can do what you asked.


Best regards,
  Alexander



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Martin Meredith]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 04:48:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Gebhardt Thomas  (10/02/2009):
> > > > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> > > > release date that is easy to remember.
> > > 
> > > <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
> > 
> > I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based 
> > on 
> > message id :D
> 
> / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com
> 
> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.

Which I believe only searches in the current folder, so it's not exactly that 
useful.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Adeodato Simó]

* Don Armstrong [Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:48:16 -0800]:

> / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com

   (~i, not i~, as can be seen in the manual URL that was included.)

> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
 Listening to: Ana Belén y Víctor Manuel - Isla de Palma


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Don Armstrong]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Gebhardt Thomas  (10/02/2009):
> > > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> > > release date that is easy to remember.
> > 
> > <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>
> 
> I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on 
> message id :D

/ i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com

See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood
handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison.  "If this
is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners," he remarked, "she
doesn't deserve to have any."

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Martin Meredith]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Gebhardt Thomas  (10/02/2009):
> > just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> > release date that is easy to remember.
> 
> <49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>

I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on 
message id :D


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Gebhardt Thomas]

Hi,

On Tuesday 10 February 2009 20:04, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890)
> Out[2]:datetime.datetime(2009, 2, 13, 23, 31, 30)
>
> Seems about half an hour before the 14th.

oh, indead. I accidentally used local time. That's a pity!

Thanks, Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Luk Claes schrieb:

>> Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian
>> Developer who died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident.
> There seems to be a part of the sentence missing...

Thanks, fixed.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Luk Claes]

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:

===

Dedication

Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian
Developer who
died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident.



There seems to be a part of the sentence missing...

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

[ dropping some lists from CC since the involved people are either
  subscribed somewhere else or BCCed ]

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl schrieb:

> The most current version may be found in a private subversion repository
> (to avoid conflicts when using the wiki).  You can get the most recent
> version from
> http://svn.schmehl.info/svn/debian-publicity/20090214-lenny-release/lenny-announcement.en.wml
> ; translators might later be interested in
> http://svn.schmehl.info/websvn/listing.php?repname=debian-publicity&path=%2F20090214-lenny-release%2F&rev=0&sc=0
> to track changes in the document.

Okay, I think I merged all the content related suggested by now as well
as most spelling / grammatical improvements.  The current version is
available on the named location.

I think content wise we are done; it's quite long for an announcement,
but I think it's still okay.  So please give it an other content check,
which I will add tomorrow.

Some interesting stuff for translators will follow in a separate mail.


Best regards,
  Alexander



Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 released
2009-02-14
#use wml::debian::news

The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of
Debian GNU/Linux version 5.0,codenamed lenny after 22 months of
constant development.  Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system which
supports a total of twelve processor architectures and includes the KDE,
GNOME, Xfce and LXDE desktop environments.  It also features
compatibility with the FHS v2.3 and software developed for
version 3.2 of the LSB.



Debian GNU/Linux runs on computers ranging from palmtops and handheld
systems to supercomputers, and on nearly everything in between.  A total
of twelve architectures are supported including:  Sun SPARC (sparc), HP
Alpha (alpha), Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc), Intel IA-32 (i386) and
IA-64 (ia64), HP PA-RISC (hppa), MIPS (mips, mipsel), ARM (arm, armel), IBM
S/390 (s390) and AMD64 and Intel EM64T (amd64).

Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 (Lenny) will include the new ARM EABI port, Armel. 
This new port provides a more efficient use of both modern and future ARM 
processors. As a result the old ARM port (arm) has now been deprecated.

This includes support for Marvell's Orion platform or devices based on
the Orion platform, like QNAP Turbo Station, HP mv2120, and Buffalo
Kurobox Pro as well as Netbooks, such as the EEE PC by Asus. Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny also contains the build tools for Emdebian which
allow Debian source packages to be cross-built and shrunk to suit embedded ARM systems.

With the integration of X.org 7.3 the X server autoconfigures itself
with most hardware. Newly introduced packages allow the full support of
NTFS filesystems or the usage of most multimedia keys out of the box.
Support for Adobe® Flash® format files are available via the swfdec 
or Gnash plugin.
Overall improvements for notebooks have been introduced, like out of the
box support of CPU frequency scaling.

The inclusion of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology,
into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based
applications in Debian's "main" repository.

Further improvement regarding the security of the system include the
installation of available security updates before the first reboot by the
installation system, the reduction of setuid root binaries and open ports
in the standard installation as well as building several
security-critical packages with GCC Hardening features. Various
applications have specific improvements, too. PHP for example is now
built with the Suhosin hardening patch.

For non native English speaking user the package management now supports
translated package descriptions which will automatically show the description
of a package in the native language of the user if available. An other
interesting feature introduced in the package management system is the use of
differential updates for package index files.

Debian GNU/Linux can be installed from various installation media such
as DVDs, CDs, USB sticks and floppies, or from the network.  GNOME is the
default desktop environment and is contained on the first CD.  The K
Desktop Environment (KDE), the Xfce or the LXDE desktop can be installed
through two new alternative CD images.  Again available with Debian
GNU/Linux 5.0 are multi-arch CDs and DVDs supporting installation of
multiple architectures from a single disc as well as Blu-ray Discs
allowing the archive for an entire architecture to be shipped on a single
installation medium.

In addition to the regular installation media, Debian GNU/Linux can
now also be directly used without prior installation. These special
images are also known as live images and are available for CDs, USB
sticks and different forms of network setups. Initially, these are
provided for the amd64 and i386 architectures only.

The installation process for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 has been improved in
many ways: support for installation fro

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[W. Martin Borgert]

On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> What about:
>
> ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
> (build from over 12,000 source packages).

Perfect!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Noah Meyerhans]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:54:02PM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> W. Martin Borgert schrieb:
> 
> > It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why
> > not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000
> > *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when
> > we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like
> > lying...
> 
> What about:
> 
> ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
> (build from over 12,000 source packages).
> 
> For the end user the number of the binary packages is more interesting
> than the source packages.  With that we have both: The interesting
> number and the true number.

I think it's the other way around.  Users don't really care, for
example, that we build 10 binary packages out of the iceweasel source,
or that we build a couple dozen binary packages out of glibc.  We
include iceweasel 3.0, and we include glibc 2.7.  That's what's
meaningful to the users.

noah



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Cyril Brulebois]

W. Martin Borgert  (10/02/2009):
> On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> > What about:
> >
> > ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
> > (build from over 12,000 source packages).

built?

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

W. Martin Borgert schrieb:

> It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why
> not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000
> *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when
> we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like
> lying...

What about:

... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages
(build from over 12,000 source packages).

For the end user the number of the binary packages is more interesting
than the source packages.  With that we have both: The interesting
number and the true number.


Best regards,
  Alexander




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[W. Martin Borgert]

On 2009-02-10 18:50, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Yes the 23'000 are the binary packages for i386.  Oh, I better correct that
> to 22'000 to reflect other archs, too.
>
> I took the number of binary packages, because we usually take the number of
> binary packages.  It was in the last announcements and it's even on our
> front page.  While I think that source packages would be fairer, we should
> either leave it or change it on all places.

It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why
not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000
*source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when
we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like
lying...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Floris Bruynooghe]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:04:21PM +0100, Gebhardt Thomas wrote:
> just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be
> a release date that is easy to remember.

f...@laurie:~$ ipython

In [1]:import datetime

In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890)
Out[2]:datetime.datetime(2009, 2, 13, 23, 31, 30)

Seems about half an hour before the 14th.

Regards
Floris

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi Gunnar!

Gunnar Wolf schrieb:

>> 
> 
> Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate
> concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be
> rephrased +- this way:
[..]
> Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I
> wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this
> feature.

Precisely.  The second and the third paragraph are taken unchanged from the
etch announcement.

I'm not yet sure what to mention there, so I left the old paragraphs as a
reminder to add something there and commented them out so they wouldn't
appear should I forget them ;)

Thanks for your feedback anyway; mentioning the overdone installer and
improved g-i sounds sane.


Best regards,
  Alexander


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

Adeodato Simó schrieb:
> Hey, Alexander, thanks for your work here! Some minor comments follow:

Thanks for the feedback; I applied your changes / added FIXME so I won't
forget them.



>> Hypervisor 3.2.1, OpenJDK 6b11 and more than 23,000 other ready to use
>> software packages.
> 
> I don't know about the 23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and
> I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into
> different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW
> there are around 12,500 source packages in Lenny.)
> 
> In any case, I'm happy to leave this issue to your discretion.

Yes the 23'000 are the binary packages for i386.  Oh, I better correct that
to 22'000 to reflect other archs, too.

I took the number of binary packages, because we usually take the number of
binary packages.  It was in the last announcements and it's even on our
front page.  While I think that source packages would be fairer, we should
either leave it or change it on all places.


>> Upgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 from the previous release, Debian
>> GNU/Linux 4.0 codenamed etch, are automatically handled by the
>> aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a
>> certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool.
> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
> tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get
> was preferred now over aptitude. Could you investigate, and swap the
> order if that's the case?

It is consistent with the Release notes (at least the versions from weekend
and today) and the coordinator of the release notes didn't complain, yet ;)


>> About Debian
> Was there going to be a brief mention of the dedication to Thiemo in the
> announcement? (I think I saw the idea thrown somewhere, I'm just not
> sure if something came out of it.)

Shame on me for forgeting that; added a "FIXME", if someone comes up with
an actual text proposal I would be glad.  I always felt insecure when
writing these texts in a foreign language the last times :(


Best regards,
  Alexander


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Cyril Brulebois]

Gebhardt Thomas  (10/02/2009):
> just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a
> release date that is easy to remember.

<49862854.1070...@googlemail.com>

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?

[Gebhardt Thomas]

Hi,

just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be
a release date that is easy to remember.

Cheers, Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Florian Weimer]

* Gunnar Wolf:

> Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I
> wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this
> feature. I agree with announcing the graphical interface here, as it
> was hidden by default, but AFAIK the crypto part was already there (of
> course, exciting new developments in it might exist and warrant this)

It wasn't in the installer in March 2006, but beyond that, my memory
is foggy.  If you decide to mention this, please call it "full disk
encryption" (the boot partition doesn't count as far as the industry
is concerned).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]

Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The preferred tool is aptitude.
> 
> This is not a matter for you to decide by fiat.  The tools recommended in
> the release notes should be the ones that work most reliably for
> dist-upgrading from the previous release.  Based on various upgrade reports
> I've seen over the past year, that isn't aptitude.
This is not my fiat, that was (was?) decided some time ago by apt and aptitude
maintainers, and various Debian docs that I read before. However, now I 
understand that
things may change, and the final decision is not made by maintainers but by the 
release
team. So, I am sorry for my premature phrase.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:07:28PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Adeodato Simó  writes:

> >>> Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
> >>> management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
> >>> also by the apt-get package management tool.
> >> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
> >> tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought
> >> apt-get was preferred now over aptitude.

> > Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended
> > over apt-get).

> >> Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case?
> The preferred tool is aptitude.

This is not a matter for you to decide by fiat.  The tools recommended in
the release notes should be the ones that work most reliably for
dist-upgrading from the previous release.  Based on various upgrade reports
I've seen over the past year, that isn't aptitude.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Adeodato Simó  writes:
> 
>>> Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
>>> management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
>>> also by the apt-get package management tool.
>> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
>> tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought
>> apt-get was preferred now over aptitude.
> 
> Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended
> over apt-get).
> 
>> Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case?
The preferred tool is aptitude.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Ben Finney]

Adeodato Simó  writes:

> > Upgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package
> > management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree
> > also by the apt-get package management tool.
> 
> This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
> tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought
> apt-get was preferred now over aptitude.

Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended
over apt-get).

> Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case?

Yes please.

-- 
 \  “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O |
  `\   Lord, make my enemies ridiculous!’ And God granted it.” |
_o__)—Voltaire |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Moritz Muehlenhoff]

On 2009-02-09, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl  wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --040603030801070601030404
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> [ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of
>   the current state ]
>
>
> Hi!
>
> Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny
> release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from
> ready :(

Maybe add a new about all the fancy games that are included in Lenny? Nexuiz,
OpenArena, Battle for Wesnoth, FreeCiv, FreeCol, SuperTux, Torcs? And you
should mention GoPlay, which allows comfortable browsing of games.

Cheers,
   Moritz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Gunnar Wolf]

Alexander Reichle-Schmehl dijo [Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:15:23AM +0100]:
> (...)
> 

Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate
concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be
rephrased +- this way:

The installer for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 has received a major
overhaul. Among other features, it comes with out-of-the-box
support for encrypted partitions. This release introduces (...) 

That will make it a bit clearer, IMHO. 

Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I
wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this
feature. I agree with announcing the graphical interface here, as it
was hidden by default, but AFAIK the crypto part was already there (of
course, exciting new developments in it might exist and warrant this)

Looking at the many points (I am writing as I am reading), maybe this
first comment I made would be better served by adding sections
(i.e. "Installation", "Desktop", "Laptops", "Hardware support")
instead of rewording paragraphs as I just suggested..?

Thank you  - as always, your work is much appreciated. And I fail to
see the strong en_DE accent that used to characterize your texts :)

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Graham Cobb]

On Monday 09 February 2009 13:19:06 Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin.
>
> Should Gnash be mentioned here? Is it ready for such a high profile
> mention? (Maintainers Bcc'ed.)

I believe this would have to be (replace (R) with the registered trademark 
symbol if available in the charset being used to publish the release):

Support for Adobe(R) Flash(R) format files are available via the swfdec 
[and/or Gnash] plugin.

And the release would have to include (at the bottom somewhere):

“Adobe” and “Flash” are either registered trademarks or trademarks of
Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.

See http://www.adobe.com/misc/trademarks.html and the PDF files linked from 
that page for more details.

Graham


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Draft for lenny release announcement

[Adeodato Simó]

Hey, Alexander, thanks for your work here! Some minor comments follow:

> supports a total of eleven processor architectures

As per Riku's comment about armel being missing, this should be 12.

> A total of eleven architectures are supported including:

Same here.

> Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin.

Should Gnash be mentioned here? Is it ready for such a high profile
mention? (Maintainers Bcc'ed.)

> The integration of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology,
> into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based
> applications in Debians "main" repository.
  ^^^
  Debian's

> 2.4.7, Iceweasel (an unbranded version of Mozilla Firefox 3.0.5), Icedove
^
3.0.6 (will
migrate soon)

> Iceape (an unbranded version of Mozilla Seamonkey 1.1.14),

Iceape has been dropped (we only keep the -dev packages for
Build-Dependencies), so please drop that bit from the announcement.

> PostgreSQL 8.3.5,

This may be 8.3.6 in the end, I'll let you know if that's the case.

> MySQL
> 5.1.30 and 5.0.51a, GNU Compiler Collection 4.3.2, Linux kernel version
> 2.6.26, Apache 2.2.9, Samba 3.2.5, Python 2.5.2 and 2.4.6, Perl 5.10.0,
> PHP 5.2.6, Asterisk 1.4.21.2, Emacs 22, Inkscapoe 0.46, Nagios 3.06, Xen
  ^
  Inkscape (typo)

> Hypervisor 3.2.1, OpenJDK 6b11 and more than 23,000 other ready to use
> software packages.

I don't know about the 23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and
I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into
different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW
there are around 12,500 source packages in Lenny.)

In any case, I'm happy to leave this issue to your discretion.

> Upgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 from the previous release, Debian
> GNU/Linux 4.0 codenamed etch, are automatically handled by the
> aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a
> certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool.

This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been
tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get
was preferred now over aptitude. Could you investigate, and swap the
order if that's the case?

> About Debian

Was there going to be a brief mention of the dedication to Thiemo in the
announcement? (I think I saw the idea thrown somewhere, I'm just not
sure if something came out of it.)

Thanks!

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone.
-- Alan Cox


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Draft for lenny release announcement

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

[ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of
  the current state ]


Hi!

Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny
release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from
ready :(

Especially the second and third paragraphs need a better replacement; maybe
the d-i or cd folks have a good idea about that?

I tried my best to make the draft based on
http://wiki.debian.org/NewInLenny and own experience but I'm sure I missed
important thing.  So please feel free to point out really important
changes, which should be mentioned in the announcement.


About the timeline... Hopefully we'll release next Saturday... So I would
like to see the content of the announcement finished by Wednesday and use
the remaining time for reviewing and translating the announcement.
-l10n-english and -i18n will that be enough time for you?

I know that ideally translators would work on a frozen version of the
announcement, but I fear that won't fit into the remaining time.


The most current version may be found in a private subversion repository
(to avoid conflicts when using the wiki).  You can get the most recent
version from
http://svn.schmehl.info/svn/debian-publicity/20090214-lenny-release/lenny-announcement.en.wml
; translators might later be interested in
http://svn.schmehl.info/websvn/listing.php?repname=debian-publicity&path=%2F20090214-lenny-release%2F&rev=0&sc=0
to track changes in the document.


Best regards,
  Alexander

PS: I set reply-to to the publicity list, but feel free to follow up to an
other list when discussing specific points (like translations); I'll try to
follow the discussion on all lists.
Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 released
2009-02-14
#use wml::debian::news

The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of
Debian GNU/Linux version 5.0, codenamed etch, after 22 months of
constant development.  Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system which
supports a total of eleven processor architectures and includes the KDE,
GNOME Xfce and lxde desktop environments.  It also features cryptographic
software and compatibility with the FHS v2.3 and software developed for
version 3.2 of the LSB.




Also beginning with Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, the package management system
has been improved regarding security and efficiency.  Secure APT allows
the verification of the integrity of packages downloaded from a mirror.
Updated package indices won't be downloaded in their entirety, but
instead patched with smaller files containing only differences from
earlier versions.

Debian GNU/Linux runs on computers ranging from palmtops and handheld
systems to supercomputers, and on nearly everything in between.  A total
of eleven architectures are supported including:  Sun SPARC (sparc), HP
Alpha (alpha), Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc), Intel IA-32 (i386) and
IA-64 (ia64), HP PA-RISC (hppa), MIPS (mips, mipsel), ARM (arm), IBM
S/390 (s390) and AMD64 and Intel EM64T (amd64).

This includes support for Marvell's Orion platform or devices based on
the Orion platform, like QNAP Turbo Station, HP mv2120, and Buffalo
Kurobox Pro.

With the integration of X.org 7.3 the X server autoconfigures itself
with most hardware. Newly introduced packages allow the full support of
NTFS filesystems or the usage of most multimedia keys out of the box.
Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin.
Overall improvements for notebooks have been introduced, like out of the
box support of CPU frequency scaling.

The integration of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology,
into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based
applications in Debians "main" repository.

Further improvement regarding the security of the system include the
installation of available security updates before the first reboot by the
installation system, the reduction of setuid root binaries and open ports
in the standard installation as well as building several
security-critical packages with GCC Hardening features. Various
applications have specific improvements, too. PHP for example is now
built with the Suhosin hardening patch.

Debian GNU/Linux can be installed from various installation media such
as DVDs, CDs, USB sticks and floppies, or from the network.  GNOME is the
default desktop environment and is contained on the first CD.  The K
Desktop Environment (KDE), the Xfce or the lxde desktop can be installed
through two new alternative CD images.  Again available with Debian
GNU/Linux 5.0 are multi-arch CDs and DVDs supporting installation of
multiple architectures from a single disc as well as Blue Ray Discs
allowing the archive for an entire architecture to be shipped on a single
installation medium.

Debian GNU/Linux can be downloaded right now via bittorrent (the
recommended way), jigdo or HTTP;  see Debian
GNU/Linux on CDs for further information.  It will soon be available
on 

Re: lenny

[Matthew Johnson]

On Mon Jan 19 14:19, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com wrote:
> When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release 
> available?

As Martin says, there are still bugs we are trying to squash. The main
blocker, however, is the next RC of the installer, which is what we
expect to release in the final product. Once that's available (hopefully
soon!) then the release team will be very aggressive about ignoring bugs
or removing packages.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: lenny

[Martin Zobel-Helas]

Hi, 

On Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 14:19:28 +0100, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com 
wrote:
> Dear Debian Team!
> 
> When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release 
> available?

"When it's ready". :-)

There are currently 101 release critical bugs concerning the next
release, so we are getting closer, but it's hard to tell. Maybe 4w from
now, maybe half a year from now.

Greetings
Martin

-- 
 Martin Zobel-Helas   | Debian System Administrator
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer   |   Debian Listmaster
 Public key http://zobel.ftbfs.de/5d64f870.asc   -   KeyID: 5D64 F870
 GPG Fingerprint:  5DB3 1301 375A A50F 07E7  302F 493E FB8E 5D64 F870


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

lenny

[Tamas . Garamszegi]

Dear Debian Team!

When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 "Lenny" distribution release 
available?

Thank you for your answer. 

Best regards:

Garamszegi Tamás

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:23:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> * Brainwash the libgd maintainers to obtain the [http://bugs.debian.org/443654
>   removal of the "-noxpm"] packages (volunteer to do the transition:
>   CharlesPlessy).

Save your soap/acid/whatever intended for such brainwash: Dependencies 
of X11-related libraries have now been fixed to no longer pull in 
excessive amounts of irrelevant packages when linking against libxpm, 
and I already intend to drop the noxpm flavor. After Lenny.

Odd that you consider it big enough issue to discuss projectwide, but 
whatever...


  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAklt7lgACgkQn7DbMsAkQLjYfQCfWIDJ7/4mBaHw5itjf/RMTb4S
OOIAoJf1KowrLvu4GiLhlUj3IrB3/CIr
=9uJs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:39:47PM +0100, Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> 
> I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while
> ago.

Hi Adeodato,

this is an excellent idea!

Although top-down approaches are not really in Debian culture, since the
paragraph 5.9 of our constitution gives to the DPL the role of "leading
discussions amongst Developers" I would not be shocked if Steve would decide of
the order of the items on the page.

I have added my pet issues…

http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny?action=diff&rev2=16&rev1=15

 * Allow redistributable but non-DFSG-free files in the Upstream sources of the
   main archive (but no in the binary packages of course).

 * [http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat Proposals/CopyrightFormat]
 
 * Brainwash the libgd maintainers to obtain the [http://bugs.debian.org/443654
   removal of the "-noxpm"] packages (volunteer to do the transition:
   CharlesPlessy).
 
 * [http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/DebianMenuUsingDesktopEntries
   Proposals/DebianMenuUsingDesktopEntries] (volunteer to drive the discussion
   and the transition: CharlesPlessy)

Have a nice day

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Robert Millan wrote:

> OTOH, if you just tell me to "go elsewhere", I'm sorry but I don't want to
> look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a
> commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.

The only one who works on destroying the project at the moment is *you*.
Please don't continue until somebody asks for a vote to remove your from
all lists or the whole project, I'm sure enough people would second
that. Better go and fix your packages, that would be something useful
you could help the project with.


-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz   Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
> 
>> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
>> think, and hold another vote.
> 
> Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
> 
> Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
> 

Seconded.


-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz   Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Matthew Johnson]

On Tue Jan 13 20:50, Ian Jackson wrote:

> We have a number of constitutional proposals:
> 
> - Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots
> - Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and
>empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so
> - Increase GR quorum (various options)
> - Clarify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the SC
> - Fix TC supermajority off-by-one error
> - Increase TC maximum size

Also I think it's right to add:

  - Determine what requires supermajority
  - Eliminate supermajority
  - Determine who decides on supermajority
  - Decide what to do about options which are ambiguous about
  supermajority requirements (eg, refuse to run such a vote)

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Ian Jackson]

Adeodato Simó writes ("Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?"):
> It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or
> less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that
> once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over
> the lists.

Quite possibly.

> I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while
> ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's
> a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the
> discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it.

Right.

> So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
> of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
> "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
> having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them,
> and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering
> and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too.

I think this is a good idea.  Are you volunteering to maintain the
wiki page, and post periodic summaries of the schedule and so on ? :-)

> Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:
...
> * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
>   Matthew Johnson express interest in this).

I think we need to get our GR procedures sorted before we tackle the
others since the others may well involve GRs.

We have a number of constitutional proposals:

- Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots
- Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and
   empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so
- Increase GR quorum (various options)
- Clarify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the SC
- Fix TC supermajority off-by-one error
- Increase TC maximum size

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Ian Jackson]

Robert Millan writes ("Re: Results of the Lenny release GR"):
> Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote.  I don't like that we made
> an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no
> point in arguing about it.
> 
> On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the
> Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware.
> As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list.

Are you able to see further than the end of your own nose ?

Given the results of the ballots so far, what do you think would be
the result of a vote to make an exception for the things you are now
complaining about ?  The answer of course is that once again they
would decide against you.  Similar results have been had in all the
previous GRs.

The point of voting is not just to decide on exactly the issue at
hand.  We're not supposed to vote on everything.  Normal functional
people are able to see when they are beaten and stop fighting, and a
vote amongst the whole project is (or should be) the clearest way to
demonstrate to someone that they are beaten.

If you can't spot when you've lost a battle then we need to get rid of
you.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Matthew Johnson]

On Tue Jan 13 17:39, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
> of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
> "slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
> having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them,
> and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering
> and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too.

Certainly some coordination is good, but please try not to over-engineer
the thing (-:

> Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:
> 
> * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
>   Matthew Johnson express interest in this).
> 
> * changes to the Social Contract (I'm not sure if this one is going
>   to happen?).

These two I would suggest are two sides of the same coin. The changes to
the constitution are (mostly) ones about how binding the SC is, to whom
it is so binding and how to change or override it.

> Regarding the "Membership in Debian" discussion, this has always been my
> idea of what could work well:
> 
> * designing a person or very small group of people as the "drivers"
>   of the discussion; these people would have their opinion, of
>   course, but not an agenda, and should be trusted by the project,
>   and particularly by the people who feel vocal about this
>   discussion. .oO(good luck...)
> 
> * these drivers receive, in private, well-written "platforms" of
>   solutions that (many) interested people would give to the problem;
>   they read and dissect them, and work with the senders to present
>   to -project a fair summary of them, highlighting the points
>   where there's consensus, and the points where there is not.

This seems a lot of overhead to me. I was hoping that for most of these
things sensible discussion would be the way forward (but starting out
from a better point than last time). Also, it's probably worth
considering that for things like this a face to face at debconf may be
the best way to get a general approach sorted out.

I'm very interested in helping to get the membership and constitutional
stuff sorted, so please put me down / keep me in the loop for both.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?

[Adeodato Simó]

Hm.

It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or
less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that
once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over
the lists.

I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while
ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's
a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the
discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it.

So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list
of these "big issues" we have to discuss, and trying to give them
"slots", as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO,
having one or two (per-topic) people "responsible" for starting them,
and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering
and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too.

Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling:

* membership in Debian (see below about this one).

* changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and
  Matthew Johnson express interest in this).

* changes to the Social Contract (I'm not sure if this one is going
  to happen?).

* code of conduct (Miriam Ruiz and Ben Armstrong would know about
  this).

* release management, freezes, RC bugs and the whole lot (I'd
  appreciate if nobody beats the release team to this one).

* more...? (if this scheduling goes forward, now would be a good
  time to speak).

Thoughts?

---

Regarding the "Membership in Debian" discussion, this has always been my
idea of what could work well:

* designing a person or very small group of people as the "drivers"
  of the discussion; these people would have their opinion, of
  course, but not an agenda, and should be trusted by the project,
  and particularly by the people who feel vocal about this
  discussion. .oO(good luck...)

* these drivers receive, in private, well-written "platforms" of
  solutions that (many) interested people would give to the problem;
  they read and dissect them, and work with the senders to present
  to -project a fair summary of them, highlighting the points
  where there's consensus, and the points where there is not.

* discussion happens in -project, and the drivers regularly distil
  it into summaries, trying to come up with the axis of a small and
  coherent handful of options in a possible future vote, and
  receiving feedback on these.

* once the axis of each option are set, the main proponents of that
  option work out a text.

(I realize this is not very polished, but I thought I'd try, because I'm
tired of inefficient and endless discussions. I also have a couple names
in mind of possible good drivers for this matter, but I haven't talked
to them, and anyway it's leader@ who should, I believe. Bcc'ed.)

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
Will you just stand still?
-- Luke Danes


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
> (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.)
> 

A VERY BIG +1

-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Michael Meskes]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise.  If you
> > > want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.
> ...
> That goes for you, too.

I wonder how many consider this a "serious discussion". Yes, Robert, you do,
but who else? 

This is not to blame someone but a real question. If there really is a serious
discussion we (as in: the people that d not think it is) should probably leave
it alone.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Michael Meskes]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> He's doing more than interpret the results.  He claims they are ambigous,
> and that his "interpretation" is based on his speculation on what he thinks
> the developers want.

No, instead of whining and acusing people you should try to read emails
without prejudice and accept that the result is what it is. Bdale's
interpretation was based on the number of votes each option received. He
actually did compare the results of each option with the results of the other
options to get his interpretation.

> This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do.  If results are
> really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.

Well, we all know what/who helped making the vote ambigious. Guess what there
are some people who don't accept the outcome of a vote even if it is not
ambigious. 

Just to take away some possible misunderstanding, this holds for probably every
vote ever held across the world.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> > This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
> 
> Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
> considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.

The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be cancelled. So
Bdale has let it run knowing that the conclusions that could be drawn
would be limited anyway.

Now please stop flooding the list and get back to something more
productive.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Jurij Smakov]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > 
> > You're the Secretary.  You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.  If
> > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
> 
> Bdale,
> 
> After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
> at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here.  So please
> bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less
> serious problem, but at least more sympathethic.
> 
> I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
> happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
> 
> When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making
> tough decisions, and being responsible for them.  You decided that the ballot
> was "good enough" to be voted on;  you could have cancelled the vote, or you
> could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you
> didn't.  Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the
> ballot myself.
> 
> However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results,
> what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and
> badly worded.  You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a
> significant part of it, but that doesn't matter:  you already decided the
> ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound
> to your own decision.
> 
> So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
> either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
> was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the
> ballot.
> 
> I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead 
> of
> not doing anything, you have my support on that.

I don't usually participate in these discussions (so I can be 
considered a member of the "silent majority"), but this thread has 
been going on for long enough for me to want to voice my opinion. 

Personally, I'm happy with Bdale's interpretation of the vote, 
and I think that you need to make peace with the fact that vast 
majority of developers is more pragmatic than you, when it comes to 
DFSG compliance and interpretation. As such, I would be happy to see 
us proceed with Lenny release based on the results of the vote. If 
this is not acceptable for you, as a developer you are entitled to 
affect this outcome using a number of different options available 
(and I'm not talking about trying to convince anyone by repeating 
the same thing over and over).

Best regards,
-- 
Jurij Smakov   ju...@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/  KeyID: C99E03CC


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Cyril Brulebois]

Robert Millan  (12/01/2009):
> And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
> long as necessary.

We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Russ Allbery]

Robert Millan  writes:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
>> the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
>> DFSG and SC in their own work.  That's what the constitution currently
>> says.

> You mean what it says, or ...

>> I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of the
>> constitution,

> ... your interpretation of what it says?

Given that the constitution is not sentient and cannot speak for itself,
interpretations are all that we can discuss.  I believe the constitution
says what I say that it says above.  I respect that you disagree, but that
doesn't change the fact that I think your position is not supported by the
text of the constitution.

The rest of this message feels to me like just further repetition of
things that you've already said and that I've already said I disagreed
with and explained why, so I don't think repeating that I still disagree
is horribly useful.  I still think the summary I wrote during the vote:

http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2008-12/006.html

is a reasonably accurate summary of the situation.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
> > reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
> 
> I disagree completely.
> 
> The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
> the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
> DFSG and SC in their own work.  That's what the constitution currently
> says.

You mean what it says, or ...

> I understand that you disagree with this
> interpretation of the constitution,

... your interpretation of what it says?

> Attempting to
> read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into
> this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable,
> given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional
> interpretation at all.

No, but it's very clear about developers preferring the option that doesn't
gives this power to the RT over the option that does.

> (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement
> would be non-binding anyway,

Interesting to see 3:1 come back.  One of the most annoying things about
super-majority requirements is that they appear and disappear depending on
the position one is holding.  That's why I would very much like to get rid
of them.

So I take it you didn't agree with Manoj's decision to set super-majority
requirements in the ballot?

> It doesn't
> provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend
> time worrying about the licensing of firmware.

Results are clear for me.  You'll notice that I'm not complaining about
firmware right now.  But the same goes both ways: people should accept the
results when it comes to non-firmware.

> The winning option in the
> vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing
> issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before
> the GR began.

Technically yes, but politically the situation is much different.  The
developers had a number of options that explicitly granted more exceptions,
and they preferred the one that didn't.  This tells us something about what
the majority of us wants, and you shouldn't neglect it.

Of course, you can object that it wasn't an explicit assertion, etc, but
from general consensus to explicit assertion there's only one small step.
Keep that in mind.

> This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;

Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Frans Pop]

On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
> Nope.  You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
> interpretation are the ones making the most noise.

Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the 
number of posts from anybody else?

Could you also please count the number of people actively supporting your 
position and compare that to the number of people you can expect to be 
following this discussion? I think it is safe to assume in this case that 
the "silent majority" does indeed support the interpretation set out by 
the acting Secretary.

Please give it up, or at the very least STOP spamming the mailing lists by 
replying to each and every post. Make your point once, and make it well. 
The endless repetition is getting tiresome. Please limit the number of 
posts you send in a day to a maximum of 2 or 3.

I do have some sympathy for your position (though from a totally different 
perspective and totally different reasons), but you really are on a 
crusade that is never going to go anywhere.

Cheers,
FJP


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Ben Finney]

Neil McGovern  writes:

> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level
> > of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the
> > non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated
> > Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults
> > and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the
> > non-existent cabal to be banned.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you
> try rephrasing it?

I found it pretty easy to understand; I wonder what's causing you
trouble. I'll try rephrasing Mike's words:

Mike Bird, rephrased by Ben Finney:
| Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level
| of careful analysis of this issue.
|
| Robert Millan has at times come close to Manoj's level of careful
| analysis of this issue. But the non-existent cabal apparently
| hates him as much as they hated Manoj.
|
| This hatred is evident because the responses to Robert's questions
| are mostly insults and personal attacks, of a type that would
| cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned.

Does that help?

-- 
 \ “Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather |
  `\ straps.” —Emo Philips |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
> et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
> concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
> government as an organization) body.  The 'consitution' and 'social
> contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by
> action or inaction.

Agreed.

> If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make
> sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other
> developers.

Indeed.

> If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes
> sense

Nope.  You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
interpretation are the ones making the most noise.

If you want to know for real, check the vote results.  You'll see how option 2
beats option 4.

And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as
necessary.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
> 
> This is not true.  The constitution specifies that when there is no
> Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary.
> To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC
> chair.

This doesn't change anything.  When he accepted his position as TC chair, he
was accepting that he could become Acting Secretary under certain
circumstances.

It's not like he was blackmailed to become Secretary.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Russ Allbery]

Robert Millan  writes:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
>> the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision.  That
>> decision was not overridden.  Hence, the release continues.  All else
>> is irrelevant.

>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass.  Neither of those things
>> have happened.  Until they do, this is all pointless noise.

> As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
> reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.

I disagree completely.

The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
DFSG and SC in their own work.  That's what the constitution currently
says.  4 would have granted more sweeping powers if it had passed, but
that doesn't change the current situation or the fact that the release
team has the power to make this decision unless a developer override
passes.

Several of us pointed this out during the vote.

As stated previously, I understand that you disagree with this
interpretation of the constitution, but neither of us are going to change
each other's mind and the people who are in a position to do something
about it don't appear to agree with your interpretation.  Attempting to
read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into
this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable,
given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional
interpretation at all.  (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement
would be non-binding anyway, although had one passed even with a simple
majority I expect most developers would give it a great deal of weight.)

I am not claiming that the vote supports my position either.  It doesn't
provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend
time worrying about the licensing of firmware.  The winning option in the
vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing
issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before
the GR began.  This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; it
combined multiple issues and the available options didn't each cover all
the issues being voted on.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > > > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > > > what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> > > > might be feeling that way.
> > > 
> > > Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal,
> > > AIUI.  All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal
> > > proposal.
> > 
> > We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise.  If you
> > want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.
> 
> Priceless.

That goes for you, too.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Ean Schuessler  writes:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> > an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
> 
> Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
> does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
> interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution).

He's doing more than interpret the results.  He claims they are ambigous,
and that his "interpretation" is based on his speculation on what he thinks
the developers want.

This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do.  If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
> going to be adopted at present.

There's nothing to be "adopted".  The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document.  Having a vocal minority disagree with that
doesn't change things.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > > what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> > > might be feeling that way.
> > 
> > Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal,
> > AIUI.  All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal
> > proposal.
> 
> We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise.

Priceless.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··Omadco...@debian.org
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpqd6oJvCkzw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> > to the questions he's raised in this thread.
> 
> I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago.  He just didn't
> like it.
> 
> I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the
> mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision.  That decision was
> not overridden.  Hence, the release continues.  All else is irrelevant.
> 
> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the
> delegate decision, and it has to pass.  Neither of those things have
> happened.  Until they do, this is all pointless noise.

As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> > might be feeling that way.
> 
> Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal,
> AIUI.  All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal
> proposal.

We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise.  If you
want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.

Thanks in advance

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
> here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
> the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
> you or anybody.

I don't see how even option 1 would have delayed Lenny.  I just see that it
would have forced a few patches to be applied.

But we got option 5 instead.  You claim this has delayed Lenny.  Please
explain how.

> It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want
> us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last
> issue. Please drop it for now.

You're writing with the assumption that fixing DFSG violations is fundamentally
incompatible with releasing Lenny soon.

I can see that this could be true for some cases, where critical functionality
is affected, but for most of them (including firmware) I don't see any
correlation.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > > Robert Millan wrote:
> > > >   - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > > >   to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
> > > >   and sanctioned.  Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
> > > 
> > > You think everyone must be voted on?
> > 
> > Everything significant, yes.  Because I believe in democracy.
> > 
> Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything.

That's why I said "everything significant".  Compromising on our core
principles is one of the things I consider significant.

> In the majority of
> instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they
> have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
> elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
> option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.

I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues.  But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate
this responsibility.  If they did, they'd have voted for option 4.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
> desire by the voters that we release Lenny.

Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny.  However, I don't want a bad release, I want a good one.  That
means we don't release until it's ready--which in my view includes DFSG
bugs just as much as other RC bugs.

The option that won the vote does not say "release Lenny no matter
what", it says, "release Lenny, not looking to carefully at DFSG
problems in firmware blobs", more or less.  It was a carefully worded
option, and it won; it is a mistake to substitute for it something like
"release Lenny no matter what", and then to proceed to ignore the clear
statement of the winning option that *only* firmware blobs get the
special treatment.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> > Do you have any other idea in mind?
> > Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too.  If you have something constructive to 
> > say,
> > this would be a good time.
> 
> How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
> as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
> (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.)

Sure, how about a deal.  Lenny will be the *last* release with this
non-DFSG stuff, and we'll go away for this one.  I thought that was the
deal last time, but it turns out that "just this once" is repeated in
Debian about as often as copyright extension bills in the US Congress.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> > your explanation is completely unsatisfactory.  How do we solve this?
> > Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> > think, and hold another vote.  Do you have any other idea in mind?
> 
> How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to
> have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the
> last? Please hurt another project, not Debian, we had enough of this
> already.
> 

It is true that the project wants to release.  It is not true that the
project wants to release on just any terms whatsoever.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Matthew Johnson]

On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> > Robert Millan wrote:
> > >   - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
> > >   to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
> > >   and sanctioned.  Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
> > 
> > You think everyone must be voted on?
> 
> Everything significant, yes.  Because I believe in democracy.
> 
Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything. In the majority of
instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they
have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You
elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the
option of overriding or recalling them if they don't.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Gunnar Wolf]

Robert Millan dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100]:
> (...)
> You're the Secretary.  You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.  If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.  The
> way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware.  They don't
> say we empower the Release Team to make exceptions as they see fit.
> (...)
> So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
> your explanation is completely unsatisfactory.  How do we solve this?
> Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
> think, and hold another vote.  Do you have any other idea in mind?

Robert,

Please, stop being needlessly aggressive in the lists. Yes, a new vote
is in place, and settling the issue down for good. But right now,
there is no need to just insult Bdale's good dilligence, even with a
post he did not pursue but landed on his (very capable) hands. We can
argue on Debian's pseudo-legalese forever and then some more. But it
is more productive if we put that effort into working, getting out of
the present situation.

And learning not to be bashful just for the sake of it. Yes, Bdale's
skin is quite probably thick enough by now, as is most of
Debian's. Still, that's not a good reason to do ad-hominem attacks.

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


pgpdIZpe9TcT6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >   - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> > Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> > Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
> 
> You think everyone must be voted on?

Everything significant, yes.  Because I believe in democracy.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Michael Goetze]

Robert Millan wrote:
>   - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
> Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
> Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.

You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these
passages from the constitution are good for, then?

"The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are
consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers." (5.3)

"The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until
efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, [...]"
(6.3.6)

"The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and
reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the
Developers." (7.3)

"Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion." (8.3)

Yes, the constitution says the release team should let itself be guided
by consensus opinion. It doesn't say that a vote is necessary to
establish this.

As Russ Allbery pointed out, the constitution also tells you what you
can do if you think the release team is doing the wrong thing.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> - "Robert Millan" wrote: 
> > The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in 
> > Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions 
> > as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this. 
> 
> Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear about GR 2008/003 because there 
> is simply nothing crystal clear about it.

It's clear what the vote says.  What the voters were thinking, I can't
tell.  Usually one would assume they were thinking the same thing they
voted.  At least, when I voted, I did.

If we have reasons to believe this is not so, I think the vote should be
invalidated.  Playing with a flawed vote is very dangerous bussiness.

> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an 
> editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically" 
> because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to 
> imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. 
> Amusingly, those who called for Manoj's head have now fallen quite silent. 

Agreed.  Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not politicaly sustainable.  And in practice they
don't exist anymore, anyway.I think this would be a good time to propose
that they are removed from the Constitution.

> There are some things that are clear to me: 
> 
> * I have a very high level of trust in Bdale, even when he starts doing 
> peculiar things. 

I don't know him that well, so I can only judge him by his recent actions,
which are quite questionable.  I acknowledge that it may be unfair that I
can't also recognize his merits, but this is how it is.

OTOH, writing in a harsh tone is something that sometimes happens to me when
I find something outrageous.  Then again, at least I'm capable of rectifiing,
which not everyone in this thread is.

> * We should not delay Lenny for further political discussion because people's 
> operations depend on our release. 

I tend to agree with this, but I don't think this is the matter at hand.  My
concerns are:

  - Some maintainers are simply refusing to fix DFSG violations that would
otherwise NOT delay Lenny, as a consequence of the RT's rather low
requirements for appliing a "lenny-ignore" tag.  A good example of that
is #459705, in which the maintainer simply said "I'd rather not remove
this file".  I think this creates a VERY dangerous precedent, which is
precisely what I'm trying to stop.

Yeah, it is really.  It's not like one day I woke up and thought "hey, it
would be cool if we could delay Lenny".

  - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.

> * Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds and 
> makes sane discourse impossible. 

Spot on.  And point taken.

> * We have already made several such releases in the past and do not have a 
> soberly constructed framework for solving the problem permanently. 

What is wrong with the framework we've used for Sarge and Etch?

> With that in mind, I am inclined to go along with Bdale's "release Lenny by 
> all means possible" reading of 2008/003.
> However, if anyone views this as a victory then they are smoking extremely 
> powerful crack. I would rosily call this
> a "convenient failure of democratic discipline" on Debian's part. It would be 
> VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE if it continutes
> to be a permanent pattern. I think the very survival of our organization 
> depends on us coming to a well defined
> solution by the next release. 

If we're going to go that route, at the very least I think the project should
issue a position statement explaining something like:

  - We just screwed up.  Sorry about that.

  - It's too late in the Lenny release process to do something about this
without causing unacceptable delays.  We will release Lenny ASAP out of
responsibility.

  - We will try to find a solution.

Would you be likely to support such thing?

> So I'm sorry Robert, your heart is absolutely in the right place but I agree 
> that we should release Lenny.

You say you're sorry?  You almost read my mind!

But I don't agree that doing nothing is going to solve our problem.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Neil McGovern]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> > Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> > editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> > because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to
> > imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. 
> 
> Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's
> level of careful analysis.  Robert Milan has at times come
> close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much
> as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions
> are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause
> anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned.
> 

Hi Mike,

I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you try
rephrasing it?

Neil
-- 
 Maulkin: there is no html tag  (yet? could be
extended like foo -> Ganneff kills foo?) :)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Daniel Dickinson]

Robert,

I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact.  Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.

As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
government as an organization) body.  The 'consitution' and 'social
contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by
action or inaction.

If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make
sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other
developers.  If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes
sense then that is what sticks, regardless of what you think the
'rules' say.

This isn't like 'real' world government where you take the government
to court and force it to do something it doesn't want to do because of
the constitution.  The bodies that determine what the constitution
means (DPL, CTTE(?), etc) are the people you trying to beat over the
head with it.  

I'm not convinced you could even get seconds on a GR regarding this and
even if you could all you would do is make the majority of the project
(at best) irritated with you.

I repeat, pick your battles (actually preferably find a cooperative
way of achieving the same goal, say a month after lenny releases).

This horse is dead; quit flogging it.

-- 
And that's my crabbing done for the day.  Got it out of the way early, 
now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or 
strangle cute bunnies or something.   -- Michael Devore
GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C  http://gnupg.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
> > happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> > so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.

> This is not true.  The constitution specifies that when there is no
> Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary.
> To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC
> chair.

... furthermore, as TC chair, Bdale is one of only two people in the project
who are ineligible to be Secretary.  He certainly has not accepted a
"temporary" position as Secretary.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
> happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
> so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.

This is not true.  The constitution specifies that when there is no
Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary.
To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC
chair.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> You're the Secretary.  You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.  If
> the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.

Bdale,

After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here.  So please
bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less
serious problem, but at least more sympathethic.

I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary;  it sort of
happened "by accident", but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.

When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making
tough decisions, and being responsible for them.  You decided that the ballot
was "good enough" to be voted on;  you could have cancelled the vote, or you
could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you
didn't.  Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the
ballot myself.

However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results,
what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and
badly worded.  You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a
significant part of it, but that doesn't matter:  you already decided the
ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound
to your own decision.

So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the
ballot.

I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of
not doing anything, you have my support on that.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > You're the Secretary.  You're supposed to give answers, not speculation.  
> > > If
> > > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.  

> > It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable
> > for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact
> > you named your proposal "Reaffirm the Social Contract", i.e. SC-trolling
> > the rest of the project not in line with your opinion.

> I keep hearing this "SC is not binding" story, as if repeating it lots of 
> times
> made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is
> the one that represents this line of reasoning.

> If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate
> vote.

I challenge you to do something useful for the project instead of dragging
us down with voting nonsense.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Russ Allbery]

Ean Schuessler  writes:
> - "Russ Allbery" wrote: 

>> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
>> the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
>> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.

> Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for
> another GR unless you want one.

I'm not entirely sure how to take this response.  If you're trying to say
that I shouldn't have written the above paragraph, I beg to differ.

One of the problems with this whole mess from the start, as far as I'm
concerned, has been a lack of clarity around what the outcomes are, what
actions accomplish something, and what actions don't.  My participation in
these threads, such as it is, has mostly been aiming for additional
clarity on exactly what actions are possible and what they mean so that
people can understand the outcome and make informed decisions about what
they want to do.

I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the word "GR" out of a fear that
to mention it will be to invoke it.  We're all adults.  We all know the
situation, we all know that another GR at this point on this topic may
cause harm to the project, and we all know that people are feeling
fatigue.  I think it's worthwhile to be very clear about what's happening
and what actions would be required if one wanted to stop it precisely
*because* of that.  Otherwise we risk drifting sideways into a situation
that would have been avoidable if we'd known the consequences going in.

If Robert feels this point is so important that he's willing to propose
another GR to stop the release, my refusal to mention the term GR isn't
going to stop him.  Whether he does or not is a decision that only he can
make.

I think it's worthwhile being extremely blunt about this at this point.
Robert isn't happy with how the outcome is being interpreted.  I
understand and respect his disagreement with me over my contitutional
interpretation.  However, just as that disagreement didn't cause him to
change his mind, neither has it caused me to change my mind.  I think that
it's clear from subsequent discussion that there's enough agreement with
either my interpretation, with Bdale's alternate way of arriving at a
similar conclusion, or with a feeling that we should postpone this issue
for now regardless, that Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
going to be adopted at present.  I think that was clear even before the
outcome of the vote.

In the realm of debian-vote, he therefore has a choice (as do those who
agree with his interpretation).  He can either propose another GR to have
the project adopt his interpretation via a delegate override, he can let
it go for the time being and bring it up again later, or he can let it go
entirely.  (Obviously he has other possible actions outside of
debian-vote, such as fixing or helping to fix the bugs with which he's
concerned, but that's outside the scope of the point I'm making.)

We do ourselves no favors by not being forthright about the possibilities.
It's clear that we don't have consensus, so having another extended
discussion about how we don't have consensus just creates more hurt
feelings and animosities.

If I were absolutely convinced that the project was going off in a very
bad direction on this topic, the strongest argument that I'd see against
proposing another GR right now is that it's a *tactically* horrible idea.
Another GR right now is likely to be soundly defeated *regardless* of the
project's opinion as a whole on the constitutional question.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Mike Bird]

On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
> editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say "ironically"
> because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to
> imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. 

Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's
level of careful analysis.  Robert Milan has at times come
close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much
as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions
are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause
anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned.

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Bdale Garbee]

On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 08:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4.  What is your
> > > opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
> > 
> > I'm not sure I agree with your sense of distinction here.  I think what
> > I'm saying is a fair rationalization of picking any of 2-5 over 1.
> 
> How is option 1 related to this?

Oh, sorry, perhaps I could have stated that part of my reasoning more
explicitly.

To my reading, option 1 was the only option that explicitly would have
delayed Lenny release.  All of options 2-6 favored release of Lenny,
varying in how broad an exception should be granted and how that choice
might be rationalized.

Option 1 was the only choice voted below FD.  All other options were
considered acceptable outcomes by the voters.  

That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
desire by the voters that we release Lenny.

Bdale


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Ean Schuessler]

- "Russ Allbery" wrote: 
> If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the 
> delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have 
> happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. 

Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for another 
GR unless you want one. 

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com 
e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Adeodato Simó]

* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]:

> This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> > If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> > vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> > what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> > might be feeling that way.

> Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal,
> AIUI.  All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal
> proposal.

ACK, I wasn't formally proposing a vote. I could've been more clear
about that, but I tend to forget things may not always be as obvious on
the other side of the screen.

Cheers,

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
  Listening to: David Bowie - John, I'm only dancing


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Russ Allbery]

Ben Finney  writes:

> Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
> to the questions he's raised in this thread.

I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago.  He just didn't
like it.

I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the
mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision.  That decision was
not overridden.  Hence, the release continues.  All else is irrelevant.

If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the
delegate decision, and it has to pass.  Neither of those things have
happened.  Until they do, this is all pointless noise.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Stephen Gran]

This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
> If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
> vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
> what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
> might be feeling that way.

Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal,
AIUI.  All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal
proposal.
-- 
 -
|   ,''`.Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :sg...@debian.org |
|  `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer |
|`- http://www.debian.org |
 -


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Ean Schuessler]

- "Kalle Kivimaa" wrote: 
> Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere 
> does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to 
> interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). 
> The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team, 
> with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. 

It is clear enough that, recently, Manoj was the "roadblock" to release because 
he was the primary consitutionally empowered person that was pushing us to 
honor the Social Contract, honor the consitution and its majority requirements 
and generally follow procedure. Now that Bdale is the acting Secretary there 
should be no further resistance to releasing Lenny. I think you will find that 
Bdale's intrepretation is going to stick. Just a hunch on my part but I'm a 
gambling man. 

Do not take this as an expression of distaste on my part. There are no 
"enemies" here, just people disagreeing passionately. Passion is good, we just 
need to channel it properly. 

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com 
e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Ben Finney  writes:
>> 
>> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
>> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
>> > response to the questions he's raised in this thread.
>
>Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just
>after a release, rather than just before.
>
>> My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging
>> substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that
>> discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to
>> resolution.
>
>If you can't understand the "Please postpone the bikeshedding after the
>lenny release so that you'll have proper answers"-bit then I can nothing
>for you.

Absolutely.

If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to "hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU". I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
might be feeling that way.

Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
you or anybody. It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want
us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last
issue. Please drop it for now.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Debian Project Leader 

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Ean Schuessler  writes:
> Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
> an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.

Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution).

The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team,
with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. 

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Ean Schuessler]

- "Robert Millan" wrote: 
> The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in 
> Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions 
> as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this. 

Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear about GR 2008/003 because there is 
simply nothing crystal clear about it. Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the 
results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of 
the results. I say "ironically" because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything 
Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction 
or result of a vote. Amusingly, those who called for Manoj's head have now 
fallen quite silent. 

There are some things that are clear to me: 

* I have a very high level of trust in Bdale, even when he starts doing 
peculiar things. 
* We should not delay Lenny for further political discussion because people's 
operations depend on our release. 
* Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds and 
makes sane discourse impossible. 
* We have already made several such releases in the past and do not have a 
soberly constructed framework for solving the problem permanently. 

With that in mind, I am inclined to go along with Bdale's "release Lenny by all 
means possible" reading of 2008/003. However, if anyone views this as a victory 
then they are smoking extremely powerful crack. I would rosily call this a 
"convenient failure of democratic discipline" on Debian's part. It would be 
VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE if it continutes to be a permanent pattern. I think the 
very survival of our organization depends on us coming to a well defined 
solution by the next release. 

So I'm sorry Robert, your heart is absolutely in the right place but I agree 
that we should release Lenny. I encourage you to "go with flow" and think about 
structuring the solution down the road. 

-- 
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com 
e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315 

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Michael Meskes]

> > Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
> 
> Seconded.

+1, seconded too.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results of the Lenny release GR

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ben Finney  writes:
> 
> > Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
> > would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
> > response to the questions he's raised in this thread.

Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just
after a release, rather than just before.

> My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging
> substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that
> discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to
> resolution.

If you can't understand the "Please postpone the bikeshedding after the
lenny release so that you'll have proper answers"-bit then I can nothing
for you.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··Omadco...@debian.org
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgplbWzGCXvO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature