Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Just let me pick the NEW queue: Has it been stated publicly that
> ftpmaster is going to reduce work spent on NEW due to dunc tank? Have
> ftpmaster considered to accept offers to take over some of the work
> load they are not motivated to do any more because they're not being
> paid?

For the record, I haven't seen any such offers, and I've been looking
for them since May or so. (Proviso: offers should be accompanied by
some direct evidence that whoever's offering has the time and ability
to actually do stuff)

Cheers,
aj


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Chris Waters 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If people need to be paid, I'd like them
> >  (1) to be paid by the project
> >  (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
> >  (3) to be paid by a competitor
> >
> >I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And
> >unfortunately, no DD that (1) applies to.
> 
> What does this imply? Why would a competitor pay a DD to do Debian
> work? Is this by any chance related to Ubuntu?

I don't know exactly what he had in mind, but we've had DDs working
for Red hat, Suse, Prodigy, Ubuntu, and doubtless many others that I'm
forgetting.  Of course, one of the nice things about free software is
that classes two and three are not disjunct sets.  In fact, they have
massive overlap.

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Chris Waters 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
> time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
> institution so near to the project itself.

This is completely and blatantly false!  The only thing that's
different this time is the prominence of the developers involved
relative to the prominence of the institution, and the amount of
publicity that has ensued.  (And, unlike _some_, but not all, previous
cases, the initial goal of the institution is to improve Debian rather
than to fork it.  And in at least one earlier case, the goal changed
from forking to improving after the initial fork proved unsuccessful.)

Unless you want to try to audit every Debian developer, you simply
cannot make blanket statements about how and when developers are paid
to work on Debian, and by whom.  (And such an audit would be illegal
and unethical in any country I know of, and might not yield the
relevant details in any case.)

-- 
Chris Waters   |  Pneumonoultra-osis is too long
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  microscopicsilico-to fit into a single
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  volcaniconi-  standalone haiku


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment")

2006-10-26 Thread MJ Ray 
Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [lengthy whinge snipped]

Funny.  Looks to me like some valid unanswered questions were snipped, 
some of which were asked right back near when this effort was first 
mentioned.

> I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with "position statement"
> in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the
> project.

The signatories are clearly named.  It is their position and whatever 
the position of the project is has little to do with it.

> We've had not one, but two GRs recently, which came out supporting what aj's
> doing. If anything, one could draw from these results that the "position
> statement" of the project is exact opposite to what you've put forward on
> d-d-a. 

Options in the two GRs were split between ballots and some options were 
missing, making it a sequence of black-white fights instead of a 
resolution process, but I also doubt the majority would support the 
recently-posted position.

> Way to send conflicting messages to the public.

The developers have conflicting views.  Anyone expecting this to look 
neat to the public when "we will not hide problems" is a key general aim 
should take a reality check.

[...]
> For the record, the constant bitching and moaning is demotivating me more
> than anything else.

So stop bitching and moaning at the developers who have posted their 
views and try to resolve this problem!

> If you don't like what's going on, remember it's only an experiment, and
> after the experiment is done, raise whatever GRs are necessary to make sure
> it can never happen again.

How?  This is for real, not an experiment - we can't turn back the clock 
if it breaks the project.  It trades on debian's goodwill, yet is 
outside our agreements.  The only GRs which can be raised to make sure 
it can never happen again are so harsh (like making some non-debian 
actions incompatible with being DPL) that they seem unlikely to pass.

So, as there seems no hope of making progress through the usual 
channels, I fully support these direct action tactics currently being 
used, even if I don't share all of the concerns.  The Dunc-Tank board 
should start negotiating (as they should have done much earlier), but at 
least two of them have a history of troublesome inertia.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Marc Haber 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:12:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Marc Haber:
> > Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in
> > month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to
> > calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this
> > list are not aware of these differences.
> 
> You make this sound as if the RMs had come up with the $6,000 figure,
> which isn't true AFAIK.

Sorry, that was not my intention. I do not know where that figure
originated.

I, personally, do not, however, find that amount unreasonable for a
one-month engagement as a contractor.

Greetings
Marc


-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Editorial Comment] Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Chad Walstrom 
Joerg, et. al. wrote:
> We consider... 

[Editorial comment]

"We" isn't qualified in either the Subject or the beginning of the
post.  You need to go to the end of the lengthy message to see that
the "Position Statement" is from a collection of Developers, rather
than Debian as a whole.  "Un-official Position Statement" might be
appropriate, though "A Developer Position Statement" might be better.
Regardless, "we" should be clarified and quantified at the beginning
of the post.

The side-affect of this is that some over-zealous reporter is going to
use the subject of the post to imply that all of Debian disapproves of
Dunc-Tanc.  This is obviously not true, as the results of the recent
GR supports.

Vague statements implying that "many developers" have left Debian
because of Dunc-Tank is unvalidated.  Footnotes to Message-Id's or
URI's of digitally signed messages would carry more weight to this
argument.  As it is, the author of this statement requires the reader
to do his or her own research to validate the statement.  Not
acceptable.



-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Florian Weimer 
* Marc Haber:

> Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in
> month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to
> calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this
> list are not aware of these differences.

You make this sound as if the RMs had come up with the $6,000 figure,
which isn't true AFAIK.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Marc Haber 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:45:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> Thus at $6000 and assuming my calculation is correct, this is 60% more
> than the average salary in the US hence not "below average" or just
> "living costs". Speaking naively (since the average doesn't follow the
> standard distribution, but let's assume it does), 50% of the people live
> in the US on *less* than $3741/mo/person.

Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in
month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to
calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this
list are not aware of these differences.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Pierre Habouzit 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion
> only.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >   Especially since it is clear now that we
> >   currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying
> >   our RMs.
> 
> Is that clear?

  based on [1] I'd say that yes it is. Even if we consider that the
people we are now work twice as fast (because twice as many) as for
sarge, we have right noe 260 RC bugs, sarge was at 125 6 months before
it was released. and at 250+ 1 year before its release.


> > - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
> >   living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
> >   was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
> >   living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they
> >   could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1]
> >   mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to
> >   be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by
> >   applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds
> >   has this amount been calculated?
> 
> US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like
> a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would
> cash in on the free market.

  but that's was not a salary, at least, it was what has been promised
to us. That's supposed to pay their living expenses, and please, do me a
favor, I earn *really* less than that, and I'm able to pay a mortgage
and live well.


> > So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of
> > people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their)
> > Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was
> > started.
> 
> At this place, one of our worst problems surfaces again: People stop
> working _silently_ so that nobody can step in for them. And, even
> worse, people in key positions (that need special privileges do work)
> reduce their committment without stepping down, actively _prevent_
> other people from doing their work. _THIS_ is doing _BIG_ harm to the
> project.

  I'm not aware of any key role beeing held hostage because of people
that are fed up with DT. But I may be mistaken. Please enlight me.

  What happens though, is that key people that have unvaluable
knowledges and skills have left. We lost a valuable libpng maintainer,
we lost a guy that understood how timezones worked, how xkb worked, and
a valuable l10n team member, a weekly DWN, etc…  Some of those places
are vacant because there is simply nobody else to fill the gaps.


  [1] http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpO2nNaWo7W5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

d-d-a abuse, was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Mirosław Baran 
[Joerg Jaspert pisze na temat "Position Statement to the 
Dunc-Tanc "experiment""]:

Dear authors of the <> (whoever position it states),

Please stop abusing the debian-devel-announce, this is not acceptable.

If you just cannot stand the fact that the majority of the developers that 
happen to be interested in voting just out-voted you in regard of the 
Dunc-Tank, fine.

There are various places that can be used for discussion in Debian.

DEBIAN-DEVEL-ANNOUNCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT ONE OF THEM. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM 
ABUSING THE DEBIAN-DEVEL-ANNOUNCE MAILING LIST. (And a ftpmaster and an AM 
should know better, really).

On a side note, the author of this mail, slightly misquoting one Texan 
judge, simply wants to scream to authors of the 'position statement', "Get 
a life" or "Do you have any other problems?" or "When is the last time you 
registered for anger management classes?"

Sincerely yours
Miroslaw Baran (Jubal)

-- 
[ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ]
[ BOF2510053411, http://hell.pl/baran/tek/, alchemy pany! ] [ The Answer ] 

  Half Moon tonight. (At least it's better than no Moon at all.)


pgpGV35KxWvV4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Adam Majer 
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
>   living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
>   was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
>   living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they
>   could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1]
>   mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to
>   be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by
>   applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds
>   has this amount been calculated?
> 
>   [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm

Hi all,

I agree, this is not "below average" or otherwise. Average is calculated
on a GDP per capita. For US [1][2], that is (in millions)
$13,469,000/300 => $44896 per capita => $3741.39/month per person. This
is roughly in agreement with government statistics [3], and I quote,

"Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003
in three of the four census regions — Northeast ($46,742), Midwest
($44,732) and West ($46,820). The exception was the South, where income
declined 1.5 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median
household income of all four regions ($39,823)"

True, one has to adjust for inflation, but inflation in the US is < 2%
so the numbers are relatively correct. I think the mean is something
about $50k now so ~$4000/mo/person in the *rich* areas.

Thus at $6000 and assuming my calculation is correct, this is 60% more
than the average salary in the US hence not "below average" or just
"living costs". Speaking naively (since the average doesn't follow the
standard distribution, but let's assume it does), 50% of the people live
in the US on *less* than $3741/mo/person.


Now, my numbers may be wrong a little bit, although in the ballpark and
they do agree with the notion that $6000/mo/person is 'neither just
"living costs" nor "below average"'.

Yes, I know that wages depend on location. And they do fluctuate from
place to place, but the mean wage is about the same within +-10k. Yes,
even in NY $72000/year is more than just getting by or below average.

- Adam

PS. To myself, the experiment has failed as more than a few DDs are not
happy with it and some have quit. There is *no way* that one or two
people, paid or not, can replace that manpower. Therefore the experiment
has failed as it will result in less work per unit time being done.

ref:
  [1] - http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm for Nov 2006.
  [2] - population at 300 million (see all recent news, etc..)
  [3] -
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html
  [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beta_distribution_pdf.png


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Marc Haber 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If people need to be paid, I'd like them
> >  (1) to be paid by the project
> >  (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
> >  (3) to be paid by a competitor
> >
> >I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And
> >unfortunately, no DD that (1) applies to.
> 
> What does this imply? Why would a competitor pay a DD to do Debian
> work?

Maybe not pay a DD to do Debian work, but pay a DD to work on the
competing product.  If that DD holds a job in Debian that requires
special privileges, and that job is neglected without the DD in
question resigning or allowing other people to do the work that he is
neglecting, a loyality issue arises.

> Is this by any chance related to Ubuntu?

Probably.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Thomas Hood 
Joerg Jaspert  debian.org> writes:
> With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT
> project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we
> still consider unanswered and open:


I don't mind you carrying on this discussion, but please keep it out
of debian-devel-announce.
-- 
Thomas Hood


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Tshepang Lekhonkhobe 

On 10/26/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If people need to be paid, I'd like them
  (1) to be paid by the project
  (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
  (3) to be paid by a competitor

I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And
unfortunately, no DD that (1) applies to.


What does this imply? Why would a competitor pay a DD to do Debian
work? Is this by any chance related to Ubuntu?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Tshepang Lekhonkhobe 

Thanks for the mail-in-depth

On 10/26/06, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]

Joey Schulze:   [5] Debian is a failure


This is misrepresentation don't you think? Joey didn't say that Debian
is a failure. That's just the title of the blog.


[5] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200609210757



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Marc Haber 
This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion
only.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>   Especially since it is clear now that we
>   currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying
>   our RMs.

Is that clear?

> - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
>   living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
>   was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
>   living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they
>   could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1]
>   mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to
>   be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by
>   applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds
>   has this amount been calculated?

US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like
a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would
cash in on the free market.

> People left the project, others
> are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration
> and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot
> of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on
> something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all
> the listed points are explicitly due to DT.

Just let me pick the NEW queue: Has it been stated publicly that
ftpmaster is going to reduce work spent on NEW due to dunc tank? Have
ftpmaster considered to accept offers to take over some of the work
load they are not motivated to do any more because they're not being
paid?

> Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class
> project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based
> project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other
> project members. This creates a set of two "uber-DDs", in contrast to
> all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose
> work seems to be considered less important for Debian.

Actually, personally, I do feel more threatened by uber-DDs that
happen to be in power of ftp, system administration and other key
positions in Debian. Especially by the uber-DDs that are being paid by
a direct competitor.

If people need to be paid, I'd like them
  (1) to be paid by the project
  (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project
  (3) to be paid by a competitor

I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And
unfortunately, no DD that (1) applies to.

> Another statement we heard repeatedly from DT supporters is that "DT is
> a separate project and not Debian". We do think that this is, at best, a
> joke. The DT board consists solely of the current Debian Project Leader,
> his assistant and other high-profile Debian Developers, working on a
> Debian related project. This simply can't be seen as something separated
> From Debian and the public has already proven that it doesn't consider
> it a totally separate project.

I fully agree here.

> So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of
> people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their)
> Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was
> started.

At this place, one of our worst problems surfaces again: People stop
working _silently_ so that nobody can step in for them. And, even
worse, people in key positions (that need special privileges do work)
reduce their committment without stepping down, actively _prevent_
other people from doing their work. _THIS_ is doing _BIG_ harm to the
project.


> Jörg Jaspert, ftp-master assistant, DAM, DebConf Organizer
> Alexander Schmehl, Debian Developer, press, event manager, DebConf Organizer
> Alexander Wirt, Debian Developer
> Daniel Priem, New Maintainer
> Martin Würtele, Debian Developer
> Gerfried Fuchs, Debian Developer
> Patrick Jäger, User
> Otavio Salvador, Debian Developer
> Joey Schulze, Debian Developer, Security, DWN, DSA, press, promoter
> Felipe Augusto van de Wiel, New Maintainer
> Sam Hocevar, Debian Developer
> Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer
> Julien Danjou, Debian Developer, Stable Release Manager
> Peter Palfrader, Debian Developer
> Julien Blache, Debian Developer, promoter
> Christoph Berg, Debian Developer, QA, NM front-desk
> Holger Levsen, New Maintainer, DebConf Organizer

I'd like to know if these are the jobs that used to be done, or the
jobs that you guys intend to continue doing. Of course, I am
especially interested in that information for the jobs that need
special privileges, such as release manager, press, DWN, DSA,
Security, ftpmaster and/or DAM.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch b

misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment")

2006-10-26 Thread Andrew Pollock 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
> "Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started.  We consider
> that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
> time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
> institution so near to the project itself.
> 

[lengthy whinge snipped]

You were my AM, and I have a lot of respect for you, but this is no way to
get your point across.

I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with "position statement"
in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the
project.

We've had not one, but two GRs recently, which came out supporting what aj's
doing. If anything, one could draw from these results that the "position
statement" of the project is exact opposite to what you've put forward on
d-d-a. 

Way to send conflicting messages to the public.

In fact, your email was less of a position statement and more of a
set of requests from my reading.

For the record, the constant bitching and moaning is demotivating me more
than anything else.

If you don't like what's going on, remember it's only an experiment, and
after the experiment is done, raise whatever GRs are necessary to make sure
it can never happen again.

regards

Andrew


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Aurelien Jarno 
Hi!

Thanks a lot for this mail. It clearly explains what I and others feel
about the Dunc-Tanc "experiment". I haven't signed it, but please
consider this mail as a signature.

Bye,
Aurelien Jarno, Debian Developer


On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
> "Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started.  We consider
> that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
> time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
> institution so near to the project itself.
> 
> 
> While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to
> state that this is not against the two people who should now benefit
> From it. We do trust Andreas and Steve that they do the best they can
> and only intend to do something good for Debian.
> 
> 
> With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT
> project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we
> still consider unanswered and open:
> 
> - Why were the release managers (RMs) chosen as beneficiary for this
>   experiment? There are several areas within the Debian project
>   that we consider equally important and full-time work there could
>   benefit the project way more. Especially since it is clear now that we
>   currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying
>   our RMs.
> 
> - What exactly are the release managers being paid for? There surely
>   must be more than a simple "Stay at home, work on Debian" in their
>   contract.
> 
> - How does DT want to know whether the release managers stick to their
>   part of the agreement?
> 
> - How is the success of this "experiment" measured? (For the release as
>   well as for the entire project)
> 
> - How do these measurements make sure that the observed consequences are
>   based on the experiment?
> 
> - How is it planned or is it even possible to compare the consequences
>   of the experiment with a state of the project without this experiment?
> 
> - What actions have been taken to ensure that potential negative
>   outcomes of the experiment won't affect the Debian project?
> 
> - Has it taken into account that several developers who have spent large
>   chunks of time on Debian before got demotivated to continue their work?
> 
> - How do these measurements try to compare positive and negative effects
>   on the release as well as the Debian project itself?
> 
> - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
>   living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
>   was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
>   living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they
>   could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1]
>   mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to
>   be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by
>   applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds
>   has this amount been calculated?
> 
>   [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm
> 
> Although DT claims to be separate from Debian, we still feel that we are
> entitled to an answer to our questions, since after all, we are the
> people DT is experimenting with!
> 
> 
> After this set of questions let us comment on DT and present our opinion
> about statements made by DT supporters and board members.
> 
> 
> One claim of the DT people is that this "is only an experiment". Yet
> this whole affair already hurts Debian more than it can ever achieve. It
> already made a lot of people who have contributed a huge amount of time
> and work to Debian reduce their work. People left the project, others
> are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration
> and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot
> of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on
> something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all
> the listed points are explicitly due to DT. Compared to possible
> benefits one may see - e.g. releasing near a time we promised to release
> at - in our opinion this is not worth the trouble DT already got us in.
> 
> 
> Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class
> project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based
> project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other
> project members. This creates a set of two "uber-DDs", in contrast to
> all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose
> work seems to be considered less important for Debian. It is ridiculous
> to set a deadline and then to create a project to pay those two people
> who set the deadline, but ignore the huge amount of work other people
> put into Debian. It is not as if those two Release Managers are now
> doing all the work that needs to

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Sven Luther 
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:37:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.  Would
> > you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> > with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?
> 
> > I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would
> > like to ask you to do us a favour and present the appearance of
> > propriety as well as the fact of it.
> 
> Duly noted.  But since the secretary's job routinely involves
>  running votes and DPL elections in which I have strong opinions, and
>  interpreting the constitution is an integral part of the process, I
>  would not be secretary if I did not think I could do my job
>  impartially despite that.  
> 
> If it appears to me that my judgement as secretary is being
>  affected, I shall immediately  recuse myself and delegate the power.

I fear that your judgement to notice such conflict of interest is not so good
as you think, since this is already the second time in a few weeks you are at
the extreme limit of this boundary.

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc "experiment"

2006-10-26 Thread Joerg Jaspert 
Hi,

After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project
"Dunc Tank" (short DT from now on) has recently started.  We consider
that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first
time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a
institution so near to the project itself.


While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to
state that this is not against the two people who should now benefit
From it. We do trust Andreas and Steve that they do the best they can
and only intend to do something good for Debian.


With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT
project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we
still consider unanswered and open:

- Why were the release managers (RMs) chosen as beneficiary for this
  experiment? There are several areas within the Debian project
  that we consider equally important and full-time work there could
  benefit the project way more. Especially since it is clear now that we
  currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying
  our RMs.

- What exactly are the release managers being paid for? There surely
  must be more than a simple "Stay at home, work on Debian" in their
  contract.

- How does DT want to know whether the release managers stick to their
  part of the agreement?

- How is the success of this "experiment" measured? (For the release as
  well as for the entire project)

- How do these measurements make sure that the observed consequences are
  based on the experiment?

- How is it planned or is it even possible to compare the consequences
  of the experiment with a state of the project without this experiment?

- What actions have been taken to ensure that potential negative
  outcomes of the experiment won't affect the Debian project?

- Has it taken into account that several developers who have spent large
  chunks of time on Debian before got demotivated to continue their work?

- How do these measurements try to compare positive and negative effects
  on the release as well as the Debian project itself?

- During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the
  living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it
  was said that it is "providing a reasonable amount of money to cover
  living expenses" and later on, that this is "below the average" they
  could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1]
  mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to
  be neither just "living costs" nor "below average", not even by
  applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds
  has this amount been calculated?

  [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm

Although DT claims to be separate from Debian, we still feel that we are
entitled to an answer to our questions, since after all, we are the
people DT is experimenting with!


After this set of questions let us comment on DT and present our opinion
about statements made by DT supporters and board members.


One claim of the DT people is that this "is only an experiment". Yet
this whole affair already hurts Debian more than it can ever achieve. It
already made a lot of people who have contributed a huge amount of time
and work to Debian reduce their work. People left the project, others
are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration
and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot
of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on
something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all
the listed points are explicitly due to DT. Compared to possible
benefits one may see - e.g. releasing near a time we promised to release
at - in our opinion this is not worth the trouble DT already got us in.


Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class
project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based
project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other
project members. This creates a set of two "uber-DDs", in contrast to
all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose
work seems to be considered less important for Debian. It is ridiculous
to set a deadline and then to create a project to pay those two people
who set the deadline, but ignore the huge amount of work other people
put into Debian. It is not as if those two Release Managers are now
doing all the work that needs to be done, it is expected that they go
and "direct" other people to do the work for the release. So why don't
we pay all of them also? Aren't they worth the money?


Another statement we heard repeatedly from DT supporters is that "DT is
a separate project and not Debian". We do think that this is, at best, a
joke. The DT board consists solely of the current Debian Project Leader,
his assistant and other high-profile Debian Developers, working on a
Debian related proj

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:08:48 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the
> DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
>> > policy package.
>> 
>> You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any one.

> No, I mean according to the constitution 6.1(2) the TC is empowered
> to

> Since the TC is empowered to transfer a package between developers,
> the DPL is _not_ empowered to do so unless it's urgent.  See s5.1.

That is only when there is a dispute between developers about
 who is the maintainer. Having the TC initiate such a process to strip
 away a package from a developer is over reachin itself.

>> However, the people who maintain the policy package are still the
>> maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to
>> policy,

> The people who maintain the policy package _are_ empowered to make
> normative changes to policy.  I don't see how any other reading of
> 3.1(1) is possible, whether or not the policy maintainers are
> Delegates.

When changing policy, the technical decisions being made
 affect far more than their own work. So no, I don't think that it
 applies to the policy package, and that is an exception to the rule.

> You might say that only the TC has the power to make normative
> changes to policy (is that what you're saying?) but this is
> obviously absurd given 6.3(6):

>Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.

That, indeed, is true, as also borne out by experience. But
 unless the DPL or the TC delegate away modification of policy, policy
 will change only as a last resorrt, or if the issue is brought before
 them. So, in effect, the developers can, in a new policy process,
 bring each proposal before the TC, which can rule on it and elect
 change, or not change, the policy.

> So the TC's power to determine policy is to overrule the policy
> maintainers, not to stand in for them.  The TC is far too cumbersome
> for use as the first-line of decisionmaking.

That is not what the constitution says.

> Also, if you think that according to the constitution only the TC
> has the power to make normative changes to policy, what makes you
> think the defined `policy process' has any legitimacy ?

It has none. 

manoj
-- 
The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:11:08 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.  Would
> you please formally delegate the interpretation of the constitution
> with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?

> I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would
> like to ask you to do us a favour and present the appearance of
> propriety as well as the fact of it.

Duly noted.  But since the secretary's job routinely involves
 running votes and DPL elections in which I have strong opinions, and
 interpreting the constitution is an integral part of the process, I
 would not be secretary if I did not think I could do my job
 impartially despite that.  

If it appears to me that my judgement as secretary is being
 affected, I shall immediately  recuse myself and delegate the power.

manoj
-- 
After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Ian Jackson 
Manoj, your conflict of interest here is too severe, I think.

Would you please formally delegate the interpretation of the
constitution with respect to maintenance of policy to someone else ?

I don't think you've been grinding your own axe here but, I would like
to ask you to do us a favour and present the appearance of propriety
as well as the fact of it.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Ian Jackson 
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the 
withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> > The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
> > policy package.
> 
> You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any
>  one.

No, I mean according to the constitution 6.1(2) the TC is empowered to

   Decide on any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions
   overlap.

   In cases where Developers need to implement compatible ... stances
   (for example, if they disagree about ... who should be the
   maintainer for a package), the technical committee may decide the
   matter.

Since the TC is empowered to transfer a package between developers,
the DPL is _not_ empowered to do so unless it's urgent.  See s5.1.

> However, the people who maintain the policy package are still
>  the maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to
>  policy,

The people who maintain the policy package _are_ empowered to make
normative changes to policy.  I don't see how any other reading of
3.1(1) is possible, whether or not the policy maintainers are
Delegates.

You might say that only the TC has the power to make normative changes
to policy (is that what you're saying?) but this is obviously absurd
given 6.3(6):

   Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort.

So the TC's power to determine policy is to overrule the policy
maintainers, not to stand in for them.  The TC is far too cumbersome
for use as the first-line of decisionmaking.

Also, if you think that according to the constitution only the TC has
the power to make normative changes to policy, what makes you think
the defined `policy process' has any legitimacy ?

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Manoj Srivastava 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:28:51 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition
> of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee
> delegation"):
>> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>> a) The Technical ctte can do so
>> b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
>> majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make
>> -- think of it as over riding inaction)
>> c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy.

> The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the
> policy package.

You are correct, the TC could delegate their powers to any
 one.

However, the people who maintain the policy package are still
 the maintainers -- and while they cannot make normative changes to
 policy, they are still able to fix packaging bugs,  and fix
 typographical errors (which is why the FTP master decision to add
 REJECT rules is wrong, and over reaching).

Can you quote to me the section of the constitution under
 which you think the TC can strip a package away from a maintainer?
 Even overruling a maintainer requires the TC to act with 3:1
 majority, stripping away a package from a maintainer is a power I
 have not seen mentioned.

If you ask how the TC may delegate away it's powers to make
 policy changes, I can see the TC delegate making normative changes to
 the policy, and then the maintainers of the policy package can take
 that and upload the changed policy, as one scenario.

manoj
-- 
QOTD: "I used to go to UCLA, but then my Dad got a job."
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Ian Jackson 
Debian Project Secretary writes ("Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL 
of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation"):
> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>  a) The Technical ctte can do so
>  b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
> majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make
> -- think of it as over riding inaction)
>  c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy.

The TC could decide to make a new person the maintainer of the policy
package.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread MJ Ray 
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> > There are three ways policy can be changed: [...]
> >  c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy.
>
> If c) implies that the DPL can delegate the power to change policy to
> himself, then there needs to be d) the DPL.

DPL may not delegate to him/herself.  Constitution s5.1.1 para 2:
"The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a specific 
decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the Technical 
Committee."  ^^^

Does anything contradict that?  Are people posting without looking?

Even if the DPL can change policy as a result of other powers (urgency 
or whatever, but I don't see why), it should still be done in a way 
"consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers" and 
"avoid overemphasizing their own point of view".  Yeah, right(!)

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Marc Haber 
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 03:39:38PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> There are three ways policy can be changed:
>  a) The Technical ctte can do so
>  b) A group of developers can do so, via a GR, with a 2:1 super
> majority (essentially, making the decision the tech ctte can make
> -- think of it as over riding inaction)
>  c) The DPL can delegate people with the power to change policy.

If c) implies that the DPL can delegate the power to change policy to
himself, then there needs to be d) the DPL.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

2006-10-26 Thread Kalle Kivimaa 
Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, that is not the intended ruling. The ruling was in
>  answer to a query about a random group of undelegated developers
>  changing policy, which would be unconstitutional.

OK, so the constitution allows the DPL to delegate any authority to a
delegate? Ie. the DPL could delegate somebody to overrule developers
on technical actions (6.1.4) or adjudicate disputes about
interpretation of the constitution (7.1.3). I did read the
constitution so that the DPL may not delegate authority that belongs
to somebody else according to the constitution.

I did think that you were referring to a future DPL delegation when
you answered to aj, but I guess you were referring to the REJECT.

aj:
> As per that interpretation, I've added a REJECT for uploads of
> debian-policy. I won't be looking into formally creating a new
> delegation 'til after etch has released, at which point I hope we
> can find at least four people who'll be active in maintaining policy
> according to the policy process we've had for quite some time.

manoj:
>This presupposes that you have either managed to change the
> constitution, or replaced the secretary with one whose views are in
> line with yours -- since under current wording of the constitution,
> that would be unconstitutional.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]