Re: Google Summer of Code
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 02:22:23PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 03:58:12PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >Anyone want to volunteer to take the lead on the first couple of steps? >> I guess I'm ready to act as a project admin and (if needed) mentor again. > >I was interested as well and I replied privately to AJ (but still no >answer). Nonetheless I can step back if you're interested as well or >even share the duties. We had several admins on board last year, which was useful. I'm quite happy to share with other people and reduce our workload... :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Debian Installer "babelbox" updated for Etch
For those that would like to demonstrate Debian at events, one option is to set up a Debian Installer "babelbox". The babelbox is a stand-alone machine that will continuously run fully automated installations in various languages using both the graphical and the textual installer. Between each install, it will boot into the installed system and log into Gnome for a short period. The babelbox was originally developed for Fosdem 2006 and needed some updates because of changes in the installer. It should now be relatively easy to set up again. For more information, see its wiki page: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/BabelBoxAlt Cheers, FJP (Credits for the original idea go to Christian Perrier) pgpQcn9Hu7xPc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
hih Ahora también puedes acceder a tu correo Terra desde el móvil. Infórmate en www.terra.es/correo.
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:24:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 03:17:58PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > FYI, I am running a wanna-build database for hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i386 > > and kfreebsd-amd64 on my home server, and running three build daemons, > > two for kfreebsd-i386 (yes, contrary to some official architectures we > > have buildd redundancy), and one for kfreebsd-amd64. And that for almost > > 2 years. > > Aren't you running emulated buildds for m68k too? Or was that someone else? No, that was Bill Allombert. > _That_, imo, is awesome both for demonstrating emulated buildds work, and > reviving m68k... Assuming I'm not confused. Not really, in this case -- at least not without context. Bill is using ARAnyM because he doesn't have actual hardware that could be used. In his tests, however, an ARAnyM buildd is running slower than actual live m68k hardware. Perhaps a different emulator could help (ARAnyM's main goal is to emulate the Atari platform; that is a goal which is not always compatible with "providing the fastest possible emulation"), but such an emulator currently doesn't exist (and the ARAnyM developers are more than happy to help in fixing bugs related to running Linux on ARAnyM). Bill's greatest achievement, however, is to prove beyond doubt that doing distcc actually works. Since Debian gcc packages now also support building crosscompilers, my most important personal objections to this in the past (that the crosscompiler might be too divergent from the actual compiler running on the port itself; that building a crosscompiler could turn out to be impossible on crucial moments, such as when the ABI changes incompatibily and all compilers *must* be upgraded) is now also addressed. Using distcc doesn't solve everything, however; it only speeds up compilation of software written in languages that can be compiled using gcc compilers. Packages that need to run large test suites, or that need to do a lot of linking, or that first compile a small binary and then use that binary to compile their other 5M of source code all still need a lot of time to finish compiling, even with distcc. It is, however, progress. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:59:00PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I don't like this person, but I have to work with him in this project, > > so I would like to hide that fact from him/her. I don't want to rank > > him/her above NOTA, but I also don't want to have to explain that" > > So, what can one conclude about debian from the above justification? Nothing. This isn't about Debian specifically, it's about voting in general. There will *always* be people who will consider this kind of thing when they vote, and they should not be compromising their vote in the off chance that someone *might* be offended by their it if they vote the way they really want to. It's about safeguarding the integrity of individual votes, and the voting system in general. Personally, I think that's a good enough reason to make *all* votes in Debian be secret, but, well -- I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:32:40AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > * have a 3- or 5-member leadership team, selected by the top-leader > > but composed from the rest of the winning vote tally, where by "winning" > > I mean those top 3 or top 5 who win over NOTA > > * this selection must be based on a public pre-vote and post-vote discussion > > on platform compatibility, with veto rights by someone, maybe secretary? > > Why make this so difficult? Why not let the candidates indicate in > their platforms who their team would consist of? That way the voters > would know at the vote time, not afterwards. This type of election is > pretty common in Finland. Like I said, pre-vote discussion would do... I wouldn't make the pre-choice mandatory because it can always happen that people change their minds after election... hm. Maybe that's actually a good rule. But it might narrow down the number of candidates and pose quorum issues. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 08:34:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Now, conventional wisdom says that optimal teams (that's teams rather than > > just groups) are composed of 5 or 7 people. > > I don't think we'll have any problem as there's no real limiting factor. > When you handle very simple tasks, only one can do it at a time and having > more only lead to troubles. However when most of the expected work is > "discussing issues" and "taking decisions" I don't think that the number > is a problem, but rather an advantage. I think it is, because there will always be a few people demotivated by a too large group. They will feel that their voice makes no difference, and/or that someone else is probably going to voice the same opinion as they would, so they won't participate. Of all the cliches in today's popular psychology :) I've actually seen this one to be true in the real world. :/ > One of the key points that is interesting in the board that I propose, is > the principle of 'discussion by proxy' so we really need some diversity in > the board otherwise the decisions may be too far from the real consensus > of the project. > > If the board wants to be successful leading the project, it will have to > take decisions instead of letting ambiguous situations continue forever, > but those decisions must match as closely as possible what the project > would have decided by himself via a GR. > > That's why I think we can lead even with diversity in the board. I'm not convinced, because letting ambiguous sitations continue forever has been sort of a norm so far, in part because the ratio was 1000:1; if we just improve that to 1000:10, that in itself doesn't necessarily fix the problem; but the *right* 10 (or 3 or 5) might. > > In the first case, election is easier, because we just scoop off the top > > >5 on the vote result, and throw them in; in the second case, the > > election is tricky, because how do you regulate nuances to make sure no > > incompatible people are thrown together? > > Yes, this is really something problematic, in particular when the DPL > elections tends to always interest one or two candidates which are known > to have problems within the community. On the other hand, it's easy to > rank them below NOTA... and we can decide that the candidates must be > acceptable to 70% of the voters (so they should not be below NOTA more > than 30% of the votes). That also has a problem with leading to a deadlock, you'd need a strategy for working around that. > > So, I'm thinking a compromise on the second case should do the trick: > > * elect the top-leader as the first on the vote tally, regardless of > > platform > > * have a 3- or 5-member leadership team, selected by the top-leader > > but composed from the rest of the winning vote tally, where by "winning" > > I mean those top 3 or top 5 who win over NOTA > > it's not clear how the top-leader select here... how can you choose 3 > other out of the top-3 of the other candidates ? There's no choice to do > in that case... If there are only 3 who win over NOTA, then the top-leader only has 2 to choose from :) > > * this selection must be based on a public pre-vote and post-vote discussion > > on platform compatibility, with veto rights by someone, maybe secretary? > > I like the principle of the top-leader with the tie-breaker vote. I don't > think that he should select the other members of the DPL board however, > but we must make sure that the other members are able to work in teams. I > think that the above-NOTA quorum could be used to ensure that. The above-NOTA quorum will give you generally acceptable candidates, but that alone is not a guarantee that they will mutually get along good enough to be a good leadership team. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * have a 3- or 5-member leadership team, selected by the top-leader > but composed from the rest of the winning vote tally, where by "winning" > I mean those top 3 or top 5 who win over NOTA > * this selection must be based on a public pre-vote and post-vote discussion > on platform compatibility, with veto rights by someone, maybe secretary? Why make this so difficult? Why not let the candidates indicate in their platforms who their team would consist of? That way the voters would know at the vote time, not afterwards. This type of election is pretty common in Finland. -- * 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]
