Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote: If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. And for additional info: http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256 Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a method. I'm very sad. Even if I would agree with any of you on the copyright topic, I couldn't ever agree with this behaviour. I'm not using extortion. I'm protecting myself against spending a significant amount of time for nothing, as my work on xulrunner 1.9.1, fortunately only at the starting point, would be rejected by ftp masters. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: What do you think about such a proposal? Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal, instead of proposing it to the developers? Well, because it is in line with the questions which they have been asked and its both a good chance to see weither they stand on a similar point as I do and to see weither anyone is interested in the idea at all. Surely I intend to propose it to the larger body once its more then a rough idea. I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages, so find those people and start triaging and writing patches _together_ with the actual maintainers. But don't explain your plan by saying maintainers of core packages suck (even if they sometimes do) but rather with we want our core packages to be in the best possible shape and we will help the maintainers to achieve this goal. Cheers, PS: You didn't reply to -project about the metric of bugs (25 normal bugs == 1 RC bug). I hoped we could turn this discussion on something positive to improve the fate of core packages. -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:25:11AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 01:43:16PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: What do you think about such a proposal? Why are you asking the DPL candidates what they think of this proposal, instead of proposing it to the developers? Well, because it is in line with the questions which they have been asked and its both a good chance to see weither they stand on a similar point as I do and to see weither anyone is interested in the idea at all. Surely I intend to propose it to the larger body once its more then a rough idea. I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages, so find those people and start triaging and writing patches _together_ with the actual maintainers. Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer. However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good idea and (if needed) can overrrule single maintainers. Because you surely know that there are people who simply don't accept the fact, that they are overloaded with the work they beared on themselves. But don't explain your plan by saying maintainers of core packages suck (even if they sometimes do) but rather with we want our core packages to be in the best possible shape and we will help the maintainers to achieve this goal. Thats not what I did. Telling that our core tools have a large number of bugs that are partially ignored, however, is something one could say, while not saying that the maintainers of the packages suck. PS: You didn't reply to -project about the metric of bugs (25 normal bugs == 1 RC bug). I hoped we could turn this discussion on something positive to improve the fate of core packages. Which one? One that were started shortly before the Lenny release? Atleast I replied in a similar thread and said that it would be a good idea. Regards, Patrick signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages, so find those people and start triaging and writing patches _together_ with the actual maintainers. Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer. I don't know what leads you to say this but yes, real bugs that are not Debian-specific are best fixed upstream or in coordination with upstream. However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good idea and (if needed) can overrrule single maintainers. Because you surely know that there are people who simply don't accept the fact, that they are overloaded with the work they beared on themselves. We can certainly do something if we have good maintainers that are willing to do the job if the actual maintainer is actively blocking work, but in most of the cases I have not seen active opposition. But don't explain your plan by saying maintainers of core packages suck (even if they sometimes do) but rather with we want our core packages to be in the best possible shape and we will help the maintainers to achieve this goal. Thats not what I did. Telling that our core tools have a large number of bugs that are partially ignored, however, is something one could say, while not saying that the maintainers of the packages suck. I did not say that you did it, but I warned you to not fall in the trap. That's all. Which one? One that were started shortly before the Lenny release? Atleast I replied in a similar thread and said that it would be a good idea. I replied to your -private mail and moved it to -project. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/03/msg00081.html It's precisely because such a metric is useless that I replied. :) I tried to point you in other ways to responsabilize maintainers that have trouble recognizing that they are overloaded. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny : http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Hi, Thanks for bringing this GR. I'd like to propose an amendment: AMENDMENT START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(2Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). AMENDMENT END Rationale: This is basically s/K/Q/. It keeps the 'immediate override delegate decision' as twice as hard as proposing a GR. Thanks, Neil -- linuxpoet rails is a perversion mc someone who use pgsql as calculator shouldnt talk of perversion. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. cu andreas - -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknGMWMACgkQHTOcZYuNdmPwigCeOOBGy9M/dNDD51OcyVxzbAan skkAnRxnFLrE8BL/zRs3RVONPU8KISGe =dn7D -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us screaming GR. Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time. Not appreciated. Not at all. -- | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On 11697 March 1977, Neil McGovern wrote: AMENDMENT START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(2Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). AMENDMENT END Rationale: This is basically s/K/Q/. It keeps the 'immediate override delegate decision' as twice as hard as proposing a GR. Well. I personally dislike that, and that speaking as a delegate who had a Thank you vote from the project already, but if you get enough seconders, I'm happy to have this on the vote too. -- bye, Joerg lenny schneidet nie chilis und wascht euch dann _nicht_ die hände und reibt euch dann an der nase. lenny uargs, wie das brennt lenny hammer. das ist ja schlimmer als die dinger zu essen... pgpJV0cKIkcHu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:39:13PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. gpg: Signature made Sun 22 Mar 2009 01:38:59 PM CET using DSA key ID 8B8D7663 gpg: BAD signature from Andreas Metzler (private key) ametz...@downhill.at.eu.org Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:35:32PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 15:49 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END I second this proposal This is the 5th second for this amendment. I currently count 3 and 1 failed second for the original proposal. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
[second try, this with mutt instead of tin] In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 14:55 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit : The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us screaming GR. Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time. Not appreciated. Not at all. And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they resign from maintaining critical packages? I think Joerg made it clear that the decision is made and he’s not coming back on it. The only way left in the average developer’s hands is to get the project as a whole override the decision. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: All candidates: Membership procedures
Lars Wirzenius wrote: la, 2009-03-21 kello 01:42 +, Steve McIntyre kirjoitti: P.S. Damn, just read Zack's answer and we don't seem to differ very much. Oh well... :-) Dear Zack McIntyre, Steve Claes, and Luk Zacchiroli, What's your opinion on membership procedures? Last year there were some rough proposals for how to change the membership procedures. It started with Joerg's proposal, but other people suggested their own kinds of changes, including me. I feel that my approach and Joerg's are pretty much diametrically opposed. What's your opinion? Do you feel the current NM process works well and almost always selects for the kind of people that are really great for Debian? Would some other kind of process work better? What kind of membership process would you like to see in Debian in, say, a year from now? Please feel free to dream, there's no point in being too constricted by reality and practical considerations. I think we first have to think about what a member, if we need different types of access/members and what they would be before thinking about the process(es) to become a member. I do think for instance that contributers who spend a lot of effort in Debian (like for instance some translators) should be able to become a member and so be able to vote. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: [second try, this with mutt instead of tin] In article 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de (gmane.linux.debian.devel.general) you wrote: [...] PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END [...] seconded. This time it was good. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
2009/3/22 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they resign from maintaining critical packages? If that pressure stems from a concern that without proper license information, Debian users/developers/etc could face legal action, then I, for one, as a Debian user, appreciate it. Perhaps, if maintaining the license information is something that some package maintainers are not enjoying, those package maintainers should seek partnerships with people who would take more pleasure in maintaining the packages' license information. Just a thought. I admit I haven't been following this debate very closely, however, so if I've got the wrong end of the stick, please understand. Anyhow, let's not throw the baby (the legal right to use Debian software) out with the bathwater (a perhaps non-optimally managed legal requirement to maintain package licenses).
Re: All candidates: Membership procedures
su, 2009-03-22 kello 17:01 +0100, Luk Claes kirjoitti: I think we first have to think about what a member, if we need different types of access/members and what they would be before thinking about the process(es) to become a member. I do think for instance that contributers who spend a lot of effort in Debian (like for instance some translators) should be able to become a member and so be able to vote. Translators can already become members of the project, as far as I know. For the rest of your answer, I must admit I remain in the unclear about what you think, Luk: the questions you raise are certainly questions that should be raised in this discussion, but do you have answers or opinions on them, even if preliminary? I'm not looking anything set in stone, but I'd like to know what the candidates think on these issues. Do you think the current process if mostly fine, or you think it needs to be scrapped and re-created from scratch? Or something else? I'd also be fine with an answer just saying that it's not an issue the candidate has spent much time thinking about, and so does not have an opinion on it at the current time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: All candidates: Membership procedures
Lars Wirzenius wrote: su, 2009-03-22 kello 17:01 +0100, Luk Claes kirjoitti: I think we first have to think about what a member, if we need different types of access/members and what they would be before thinking about the process(es) to become a member. I do think for instance that contributers who spend a lot of effort in Debian (like for instance some translators) should be able to become a member and so be able to vote. Translators can already become members of the project, as far as I know. It's already possible, though not it's not very known nor easy for a translator to become a DD AFAIK. For the rest of your answer, I must admit I remain in the unclear about what you think, Luk: the questions you raise are certainly questions that should be raised in this discussion, but do you have answers or opinions on them, even if preliminary? I'm not looking anything set in stone, but I'd like to know what the candidates think on these issues. Do you think the current process if mostly fine, or you think it needs to be scrapped and re-created from scratch? Or something else? *The* current process is not very obvious to me as there is the DM process for limited upload rights and the NM process to become a DD (access to machines, upload rights, voting rights, some extra benefits like the email address). I think it's wrong to make totally separate processes with gross hacks in core tools of our infrastructure to support multiple types of membership. So I do think that the questions I posed are to be answered first before rethinking details in the processes: there first needs to be a global picture. I do think that the current DD and DM statuses are not the only types of membership there should be or not necessarily in its current form. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 16:09 +, Sam Kuper a écrit : If that pressure stems from a concern that without proper license information, Debian users/developers/etc could face legal action, then I, for one, as a Debian user, appreciate it. Hint #1: the complete list of copyright holders has nothing to do with proper license information. Hint #2: read what the proposal is actually about if you want to discuss about it. kthxbye, -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Baptiste Mireux est absent(e).
Je serai absent(e) à partir du 16/03/2009 de retour le 23/03/2009. Pour toute demande de VRou de coefficient veuillez faire suivre vos demandes à l'une des personnes suivantes: - Virginie Duforest - Féguy Farouil - Sylvain Lemonnier - Gilberte Melan Pour les autres demandes, j'y répondrais dès mon retour. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ pgpc0ujIGgiYm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 09:56:20PM +, Neil Williams wrote: PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Seconded That's the 5th second for that option too. Now two options have been accepted. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on our lists. Restricting them is not going to help the project. Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because they are not preferred options, but compromises. I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General Resolutions is something that should be fixed. Currently it needs 5 supporters to get any idea laid before every Debian Developer to vote on. While this small number was a good thing at the time Debian was smaller, I think it is no longer the case. We currently have over 1000 Developers, and even if not everyone is active all the time, there should be a little higher barrier before all of them have to deal with something, effectively taking away time from their usual Debian work. This theory does not match the project history in any way. vote.debian.org details all the GR which garnered sufficient level of support to be valid to be called for vote: The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers. The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers. So the number of developers did not significantly increase as far as GR are concerned. Furthermore I am a Debian since 2001 and I see no evidence than the GR process was abused during that time. On the contrary, some GR were delayed to the point where it was inconvenient for the release process. While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. My personal goal is 2Q there, which would mean 30 supporters. If you can't find 30 supporters, out of 1000 Developers, your idea is most probably not worth taking up time of everyone else. To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this GR until you get at least 30 seconds ? this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now), considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or a Delegate. I am afraid this GR will be inefficient to reach its objective (which I disapprove of): 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made, only the number that will be callable for vote. 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals. 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against. Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:53:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: The first GR was passed in June 2003 and there were 804 developers. The last GR was passed in November 2008 and there were 1018 developers. Actually, to be fair, the first vote was 1999, with 357 developers. Neil -- vorlon We need a fresher website - WordPress is the perfect solution, that way the website can get a new look every time a script kiddie comes up with a new design -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are deprived. It does not discriminate and treats all DDs equally (as does the status quo). General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on our lists. Yes, they're an essential tool. The proposal, AFAICT, does not seek to change that fact. Restricting them is not going to help the project. Increasing the bar for a proposed option to enter the ballot is respectful of the time of all DDs. I think that certainly would help the project, and I think the current proposal would help achieve that. No restriction is proposed on *what* can be proposed for a GR; only that GR proposals must show they meet a higher threshold of support before going to a vote. If a proposal can't even garner seconds from floor(Q) DDs, I think it certainly does help the project to keep such a proposal off the ballot. Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because they are not preferred options, but compromises. This I find more interesting. I'll reserve opinion on this until I see what counter-arguments are made. To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this GR until you get at least 30 seconds ? That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called. I am afraid this GR will be inefficient to reach its objective (which I disapprove of): 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made, only the number that will be callable for vote. Which, I predict, will weed out those proposals that do not have sufficient support from interested parties to garner a significant vote tally. That seems only a good thing. 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals. How? 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against. The same could be said for the current system: a hypothetical cabal of merely 5 developers could ensure that every proposal gets through by doing exactly as you say. Yet apparently this has not happened. Why would 25 such developers begin acting that way if 5 have not? -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpX6CC61DQwV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:34AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called. It's up to the proposer or any of the seconders to do so. Neil -- pixie hermanr_: I never studied german pixie I can just read some of it because it makes sense Tolimar . o O ( There is stuff Ganneff writes, which makes sense? ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 + Sam Kuper sam.ku...@uclmail.net wrote: 2009/3/22 Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they resign from maintaining critical packages? Anyhow, let's not throw the baby (the legal right to use Debian software) out with the bathwater (a perhaps non-optimally managed legal requirement to maintain package licenses). To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if something is wrong. If I were an ftpmaster and thought I could get sued if I obeyed a GR, I would resign from the ftp team, and presumably you could lose the team that way, if it were over something that could cause legal action. If it's not yet clear what is required, then clear that up first, already. I don't care if someone won't do maintenance if they can't maintain according the legal standards that could cause ftpmaster *personal* legal trouble. Regards, Daniel -- 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: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On 22/03/09 at 23:53 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on our lists. Restricting them is not going to help the project. Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because they are not preferred options, but compromises. I agree, and I'm a bit concerned that everybody seems to think that it's a good idea to increasing the number of required seconds, while I really think that it's a terrible idea. Could you propose an amendement that explicitely says that the current rules don't need to be changed (different from FD), and another one that proposes a compromise by requiring 8 or 10 seconders? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question to Stefano, Steve and Luk about the organisation into packaging teams.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:28:56AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Well, because it is in line with the questions which they have been asked and its both a good chance to see weither they stand on a similar point as I do and to see weither anyone is interested in the idea at all. Surely I intend to propose it to the larger body once its more then a rough idea. I expressly refrained to answer your mail because it targetted the DPL candidate but IMO it's one those false good ideas until you make it a reality. I'm all for a team of many people improving the base packages, so find those people and start triaging and writing patches _together_ with the actual maintainers. Well, some time back I wrote some patches for coreutils. Unfortunately they are not yet integrated, but thats not the fault of the maintainer. However I think it could help if the project decides that this is a good idea and (if needed) can overrrule single maintainers. There are existing procedures for overruling individual maintainers - i.e., appealing to the Technical Committee. If you think an override is needed, you might try the existing process before deciding that we need an entirely new one? -- 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-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
