Re: Further draft Social Committee text
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: The rest of the soc ctte should be in CC for such informal comments as well. Didn't we agreed to a private list? A lot of CCs tend to become broken at a certain time. 4. The DPL will aim for the SC to consist of 5 Developers. The SC may not use its powers according to s2 above unless it has at least 3 members. Why give a precise size? According to my English knowledge aim for consist of 5 is not really a precise size but rather a rule of thumb and according to this interpretation I think this makes perfectly sense. 5. Each year, the SC membership will be reconfirmed as follows: (1) The Project Secretary will conduct a series of separate but concurrent votes, one for each member of the SC. In each ballot, the options will be `Keep' and `Dismiss'. I'd rather have a single vote. Keep is above NOTA, Dismiss is below NOTA. The criticism of the method for multiple winner doesn't seem to warrant the overhead of habing that many votes. IMHO Ian's suggestion enables that members will be sorted out effectively. 16. If sufficient suitable candidates come forward, the DPL will then publish a proposed list of 5 members for the committee. Any volunteer not put forward by the DPL but who achieves K sponsors within the next 2 weeks, will also be added to the list of candidates. I don't see why he should propose only 5 members. He can propose more and the top-5 will be elected? ACK. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Further draft Social Committee text
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Andreas Tille wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: The rest of the soc ctte should be in CC for such informal comments as well. Didn't we agreed to a private list? A lot of CCs tend to become broken at a certain time. Sure. I never meant personal CC. It was just a way to express the intent without making an assumption on how it's really done (looks like it failed:)). 4. The DPL will aim for the SC to consist of 5 Developers. The SC may not use its powers according to s2 above unless it has at least 3 members. Why give a precise size? According to my English knowledge aim for consist of 5 is not really a precise size but rather a rule of thumb and according to this interpretation I think this makes perfectly sense. Ok. 5. Each year, the SC membership will be reconfirmed as follows: (1) The Project Secretary will conduct a series of separate but concurrent votes, one for each member of the SC. In each ballot, the options will be `Keep' and `Dismiss'. I'd rather have a single vote. Keep is above NOTA, Dismiss is below NOTA. The criticism of the method for multiple winner doesn't seem to warrant the overhead of habing that many votes. IMHO Ian's suggestion enables that members will be sorted out effectively. You really don't want to have 10 votes in parallel... replying 10 times to 10 mails, possibly typing the GPG passphrase several times. You might tell it's only a technical problem in devotee, but until you fix devotee to handle several ballots in the same mail, I won't endorse this choice. For me concorcet is perfectly able to sort out those have been ranked above NOTA from those who have been ranked below NOTA. I really don't see the problem. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Further draft Social Committee text
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: You really don't want to have 10 votes in parallel... replying 10 times to 10 mails, possibly typing the GPG passphrase several times. Yes, this is a real drawback of this procedure. I think my very personal way to go with this to vote only against those people I would think that should leave their seat in the SC and just do not vote pro at all. I'm aware that this would not work if everybody would behave equally because very view votes against a member could remove it from the SC. I have no idea whether we should adapt the rules to the lazyness I expressed above: If there are a number of No against one member of the SC that exceedes a certain quorum this seat has to be replaced. You might tell it's only a technical problem in devotee, but until you fix devotee to handle several ballots in the same mail, I won't endorse this choice. For me concorcet is perfectly able to sort out those have been ranked above NOTA from those who have been ranked below NOTA. I really don't see the problem. I personally could also live with that, but as I said I have the feeling (note feeling is not based on experience or facts I have) that it is not as effective to replace a member. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cancellazione Domanda
Possibile che abbia segnalato già numerose volte che vorrei fossero cancellati i seguenti 2 messaggi lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02632.html lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02621.html e nessuno possa far nulla? Vi chiedo di cancellarli perchè la mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] non è nemmeno più la mia. Grazie
Re: Cancellazione Domanda
Vincenzo Manzi ha scritto: Possibile che abbia segnalato già numerose volte che vorrei fossero cancellati i seguenti 2 messaggi lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02632.html lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02621.html e nessuno possa far nulla? Vi chiedo di cancellarli perchè la mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] non è nemmeno più la mia. (He says to have already requested the removal of two emails from the official archive, sent with two different address (one is arguably his old address, the other isn't), both of which are different from his current email address, and makes again that request, claiming that a fourth address isn't currently his.) (I don't now how to answer anyway.) -- Luca Brivio
Re: Cancellazione Domanda
Luca Brivio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (He says to have already requested the removal of two emails from the official archive, sent with two different address (one is arguably his old address, the other isn't), both of which are different from his current email address, and makes again that request, claiming that a fourth address isn't currently his.) (I don't now how to answer anyway.) I doubt that they will remove it - they are items of historical record, at least one was replied to and I can't see how to tell whether this request is really from [EMAIL PROTECTED] anyway. See also http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/disclaimer Hope that helps, -- 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: Cancellazione Domanda
debian-project: telling him that changing the archives won't help, as hundreds of persons got the message at the time and it has already been archived at other places, and that an e-mail address change is not a reason to modify the archives, which, in principle, we do not change. Em Sex, 2007-06-29 às 10:56 +0200, Vincenzo Manzi escreveu: Possibile che abbia segnalato già numerose volte che vorrei fossero cancellati i seguenti 2 messaggi lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02632.html lists.debian.org/debian-user/2001/07/msg02621.html e nessuno possa far nulla? Scusa, ma non possiamo cancellare messaggi che furono ricevuti da centinaia di persone un giorno molti anni fa, e che sono stati archiviati in molti altri luoghi. L'unica cosa che si potrebbe fare tecnicamente è la rimozione dei messaggi dall'archivo, ma neanche questo possiamo fare perché i archivi sono, in principio, la storia del progetto, e non li rimuoviamo senza buon motivo. Vi chiedo di cancellarli perchè la mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] non è nemmeno più la mia. Purtroppo non è una ragione per modificare gli archivi. L'indirizzi di e-mail cambiano, ma questo non cambia il fatto di che hai scritto quei messaggi dal indirizzo antico. Grazie, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cancellazione Domanda
On Friday 29 June 2007 14:18, Luca Brivio wrote: (He says to have already requested the removal of two emails from the official archive, sent with two different address (one is arguably his old address, the other isn't), both of which are different from his current email address, and makes again that request, claiming that a fourth address isn't currently his.) (I don't now how to answer anyway.) The answer is that in principle we do not remove any posts from our archives. And that even if we did, it would not help as copies of our archives are available in several different places. pgpATvjUFPqN6.pgp Description: PGP signature
message from Sven Luther
Sven Luther requested me to forward a message to this list for him. The message is political in nature, but its tone is not something that I would find offensive or rude. I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods. I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way. Then again, if someone objects to it, just let me know and I won't send it. Thanks -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:51:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. Being publicly discreditted for our mistakes seems like exactly the right thing to happen to me, actually. Helps discourage us from making mistakes in future, helps other people avoid making the same mistakes, helps people understand how Debian works. That's why we have a publically available BTS, do our development in public, try to avoid using private lists, etc, after all... Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:51:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. Update: Sven wants to make it clear that he doesn't intend to threaten, just that in the current situation, he sees no way to pass important messages otherwise, and given the discussion about the social committee he thinks this deserved to be said. Please excuse me if my message didn't represent this tone, -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
Robert Millan wrote: Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. It's also something we as a community cannot change anymore, and it's also documented quite verbosely on our mailing lists. Regards, Joey -- Life is a lot easier when you have someone to share it with. -- Sean Perry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
Em Sex, 2007-06-29 às 15:51 +0200, Robert Millan escreveu: The message is political in nature, but its tone is not something that I would find offensive or rude. I personally think this has already been discussed ad nauseam for the past months, without any indication that a reasonable outcome would be possible - otherwise we wouldn't have got where we got, IMHO - and that it is an unnecessary burden on the project's productivity since the last settlements. I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. IIRC, Sven was banned from the lists to prevent the flood due to his, let's say, awkward method of debating and getting what he wants, that is, to avoid the flood, not as means of censoring his ideas or anything. Hence, I don't think forwarding one message contradicts the ban. Up to this point, my statements just mean I would not forward the message myself, not that I strongly object to it being forwarded. However... Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. I'm sorry, but in my dictionary that translates as blackmail. *THAT* I don't think the Debian Project or any of its members should accept. If he is overly prejudicial or distorts the facts in public, we might just as well respond to them, either with words or with actions. It's surely a lot of work and headache, but I think it's better than accepting these threats. Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods. I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way. But I don't think the silencing is to blame either, as I guess we are well aware of the reason why he was forcibly silenced. Regards, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Friday 29 June 2007 15:51, Robert Millan wrote: Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods. I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way. I don't think you can say I'm merely the messenger. If you decide to forward any message from anyone who is banned from a particular list, you assume responsibility for its content and the effects that that message will have. Personally I do reserve the right to blame you for anything that _you_ send to the list, be it written by yourself or forwarded on request of somebody else (same goes for anybody else for that matter). There is also no reason to accept the message as is. If there is anything in the message that you feel is unsuitable for the list, you should discuss that with Sven and, if at all possible, get him to change it, before forwarding it. Again, by forwarding it _you_ take responsibility for the content of the message. Personally I would probably evaluate the message based on something like the following criteria, and decide based on that: - does the message really add something to the discussion - is the opinion of the sender really relevant for the project and its members, taking into account the status of the sender in the project - is there anything in the message that is likely to offend members of the project or other people reading the mailing list - is there anything in the message that could lead to a flamewar instead of a useful discussion Personally I would prefer not to see any messages from Sven on the Debian mailing lists, but it is your call. Cheers, FJP pgpufrrmgOZYn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. I don't think you should forward it. Then again, if someone objects to it, just let me know and I won't send it. I object. We've wasted enough time with this already. If it's actually *important* (which I strongly doubt) and has some relevance (isn't about Sven or the ban or things which are done and settled) then (if you're willing to) recast it in your own words, as your own statement, and maybe mention that you heard about it from Sven or whatever. If you're not willing to do that then I seriously doubt it passed either of the other tests mentioned. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#292330: use UTF-8 by default
Am 2007-06-18 13:26:08, schrieb Mike Hommey: Anyways, maybe the general problem is that there should be a way to generate locales at the user level (and store everything in ~/.locale, for example) AFAIK does ~/locale already exist beside of ~/man. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Friday 29 June 2007 06:51, Robert Millan wrote: Sven Luther requested me to forward a message to this list for him. (snip) I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. Robert, You are solely responsible for the content of the messages you post. You must decide whether you will post any given message to the list. Sven is banned from posting to the list. He is not banned from asking you to post material for him, and you are not banned from posting messages quoting material from Sven. Whether or not you are forwarding material from somebody who is banned from posting to the list is irrelevant, provided you have that person's permission to forward the material. Stephen Frost wrote that you should recast Sven's material in your own words. Stephen is in error on this point. Recasting is permissible but it is certainly not required. You are solely responsible for the content of the messages you post. You must decide whether you will post any given message to the list. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 03:51:32PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: The message is political in nature, but its tone is not something that I would find offensive or rude. I'm aware that Sven is banned, so if someone thinks I should not forward it, please say it now. If nobody objects after a reasonable period of time, I will send it. Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. If this is just the umpteenth re-hash of his well-known arguments about his right to directly commit to d-i, I would prefer if he would carry this to Slashdot. I strongly suspect that Slashdot wouldn't carry the story anyway. If it is something new, by all means, post it. Your call. 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 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:04:01AM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Em Sex, 2007-06-29 às 15:51 +0200, Robert Millan escreveu: The message is political in nature, but its tone is not something that I would find offensive or rude. I personally think this has already been discussed ad nauseam for the past months, without any indication that a reasonable outcome would be possible - otherwise we wouldn't have got where we got, IMHO - and that it is an unnecessary burden on the project's productivity since the last settlements. To clarify, in the message Sven doesn't talk about himself at all. He just makes points about his opinion on the Social Committe proposal. They could be points made by anyone else. Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. Whatever that means, I don't personaly think being publicly discredited by our mistakes is something we want as a community. I'm sorry, but in my dictionary that translates as blackmail. *THAT* I don't think the Debian Project or any of its members should accept. If he is overly prejudicial or distorts the facts in public, we might just as well respond to them, either with words or with actions. It's surely a lot of work and headache, but I think it's better than accepting these threats. Please excuse me for not representing him properly in my previous mail. He asked me to clarify that this wasn't at all intended as a threat. OTOH, I can understand why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way. But I don't think the silencing is to blame either, as I guess we are well aware of the reason why he was forcibly silenced. Blame is meaningless here. Someone who's been forcibly silenced will try to find other ways to speak out. It's a very human behaviour, and wether he's right or not about what he has to say doesn't change this. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 10:41:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: [...] (if you're willing to) recast it in your own words, as your own statement, and maybe mention that you heard about it from Sven or whatever. If you're not willing to do that then I seriously doubt it passed either of the other tests mentioned. Hi Stephen, As others have said, it is not fair to put on me the extra burden of recasting the message in my own words. Plus, I don't think it does really archieve anything. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 04:34:21PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 29 June 2007 15:51, Robert Millan wrote: Please note that this message doesn't imply agreement with his methods. I'm merely the messenger, so don't blame me. OTOH, I can understand why a person who has been forcibly silenced would react this way. I don't think you can say I'm merely the messenger. If you decide to forward any message from anyone who is banned from a particular list, you assume responsibility for its content and the effects that that message will have. Personally I do reserve the right to blame you for anything that _you_ send to the list, be it written by yourself or forwarded on request of somebody else (same goes for anybody else for that matter). There is also no reason to accept the message as is. If there is anything in the message that you feel is unsuitable for the list, you should discuss that with Sven and, if at all possible, get him to change it, before forwarding it. Again, by forwarding it _you_ take responsibility for the content of the message. Hi Frans, I want to make it clear that I don't agree with the ban. I don't intend to start a discussion over this, but I think it's important to be honest, so I had to mention that. That said, I appreciate that you are taking a stance that is (at least seemingly so) disconnected from your personal involvement in previous conflicts with Sven. I'll assume responsability for Sven's words if that's necessary for him to speak. Thank you -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Social committee proposal: mediation or repression ?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03:09AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 07:32:15AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:03:56PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Rationale - There wasn't a huge amount of discussion about this; mostly people seemed to acquiesce to the way I put it, which is that we need some method for dealing with disruptive behaviour that lies between individuals asking for it to stop and expelling people. In all the discussion i have seen about the social comittee, which i have, as you can imagine, followed with interest, there is something that disturbs me most. All the talks have been about how to elect members, and giving the SoC individual members the power to quickly take action (suposedly by warning or temporarily banning folk from lists). This is indeed also how most DDs have seen the problem i was involved with over the last year, and some remarks, particularly those of Anthony Town about definitive measures that cannot be contested are indeed very disturbing. Now, if your governement would be proposing a proposal like what is currently being proposed, many of you would be off screaming about police state and repression before prevention, not to mention attacks on freedom of speach over the censorship powers which have nothing to envy to the russian governement closing up news agencies or even repression and censorship from darker times. I understand that most of us DDs don't really have much political conciousness, or most probably don't want to see their own dealings as being politically dubious, but this is indeed a very very disturbing path to walk. In order to solve social dispute, the first step should always be mediation, and no, mediation is not trying to talk to the party you already judged guilty in order to make him be silent, and if this fails pass out punishement and unilateral judgements. The first order of business in a social dispute is communication and negotiation. If a complaints arise, then the social comittee should investigate it, speak with both parties involved in the dispute, verify the veracity of those claims with facts and independent third parties, and try to discuss. Hearing both parties is important, understanding what their grief are, and trying to find a middle ground acceptable to both. And only if this really fails, should action be taken. Furthermore, the social committee needs to be impartial, which i know can be difficult, and hiding their discussions in private channels is not going to help there, and brings again up the ghost of shady dealings and cabal decision. So, what i believe is important in this, is for the social committee to have a clear mandate to negotiate and mediate first, before using repressive means, and maybe for each social committee member to take an oath of impartiality, fairness and will to solve issues in negotiation and mediation, just like real world judges do. This is the only way to bring debian back again on the way to fun and friendliness, and the way to a police state that ian is proposing, altough nearer to the habits of DDs, is definitively not the way to go. Friendly, Sven Luther -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
* Robert Millan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: As others have said, it is not fair to put on me the extra burden of recasting the message in my own words. Plus, I don't think it does really archieve anything. Then don't post it, and please stop this thread (by not replying further). Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: message from Sven Luther
Robert Millan wrote: Sven Luther requested me to forward a message to this list for him. I have no problem with you forwarding a message. I would caution you that it is likely you would be held responsible and liable for the content, but if it breaks no (un)written rules, you should be okay. NB: I have not followed the Sven saga, though I have sampled a bit at some of the threads. -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 09:49:23AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: Robert Millan wrote: Sven Luther requested me to forward a message to this list for him. I have no problem with you forwarding a message. I would caution you that it is likely you would be held responsible and liable for the content, but if it breaks no (un)written rules, you should be okay. NB: I have not followed the Sven saga, though I have sampled a bit at some of the threads. -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html Heh, can cats learn how to forward mail? I could use a disclaimer like yours. :-) -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
Hi, Firstly, wearing my secretary hat, I have no objections to running votes for the soc-ctte membership, if we do decide such votes are how things will be done. Now, taking the hat off, and speaking bare headed, I have a couple of comments to make. The first set of comments I have is related to efficacy, and, perhaps, the notion of fairness. There is a fundamental difference between a technical committee and a social committee: a technical issue is likely to be far less subjective, and while there are tradeoff aspects to technical problems, it is far easier to come up with reasons for the trade offs, and a rationale for selecting one option over the other, and do so in a relatively objective fashion. A social committee resolving disputes has no such luxury. In a sense, since a machine interprets the end results of technical problems (well, for the most part), we tend to speak in one language; but as Debian contributers come from varied and diverse backgrounds and cultures, the cultural differences have an impact on the disputes and also the perception of the resolution. Differences in culture make the difference between commonplace conversation and unacceptable insults; there are various anecdotes about ocidental and mist eastern differences in something as simple as inviting a guest to the dinner table (us americans would be seen as horribly rude). An anecdote I tell deals with a young developer on an Indian mailing list somewhat rudely contradicting me about the Etch release; the other members jumped on him not because he was incorrect, nor necessarily because of his rudeness; but because a lack of respect from a younger person to an older person was unacceptable. The age based distinction would make absolutely no sense for my American friends. I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been taken to address cultural diversity in the dispute resolution process. Are we planning on taking into account things like cultural differences? Or is the decision going to be that the majority rule (or the dominant culture) be the governing one? The second set of comments I have are about accountability (and, yes, this applies to the tech ctte as well). Who are the tech and soc ctte members accountable to? Is there any recourse to the membership, apart from overturning individual decisions via a GR, to counteract a committee (social or technical) that has turned wayward and out of control? manoj -- The girl who remembers her first kiss now has a daughter who can't even remember her first husband. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:16:50 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)? Not a big problem though: I guess if it's not suitable we can find an alternative method, but I definitely don't want a ballot with all possible permutation of resulting soc-ctte :-) Something to be looked for before the election though, or maybe Manoj can enlighten all us out of the box. It should be relatively straight forward for Devotee to find the winner, take the winner out of contention the next round, find the next winner (ignoring any pairwise contests dealing with any candidate no longer in the contest), and continue until the number of candidates desired has been reached. manoj -- Moore's Constant: Everybody sets out to do something, and everybody does something, but no one does what he sets out to do. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 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: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The first set of comments I have is related to efficacy, and, perhaps, the notion of fairness. There is a fundamental difference between a technical committee and a social committee: a technical issue is likely to be far less subjective http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=162;bug=367709 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=177;bug=367709 Ruling based on the technical details of a question is apparently no defense against accusations of subjectivity anyway. Nor are any of our existing poor methods for dealing with social problems any less subjective, so I don't think this is a reason not to proceed. and while there are tradeoff aspects to technical problems, it is far easier to come up with reasons for the trade offs, and a rationale for selecting one option over the other, and do so in a relatively objective fashion. The weighting of the trade-offs is always subjective. The technical committee works not because it's more *objective*, but because it's configured so that its particular subjectivity is biased in favor of institutional stability (= the status quo), which means developers are more likely to be accepting of such decisions because on some level the TC's bias shares an overall alignment with their own. I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been taken to address cultural diversity in the dispute resolution process. I frankly think this is a red herring. The society that the social committee is purposed to serve is not Chinese, or American, or Middle-Eastern, or French, or Indian, or German, or Japanese; it's Debian as a society per se that must be served by this committee. Now each member of the project is going to bring his or her own cultural preconceptions to the table, to be sure[1], and the overall Debian culture is certainly going to reflect to some degree the mother culture of the predominant subgroups (whether that's predominance in terms of numbers, contributions, key positions held within the project, or volume of mailing list posts). But I think it's the responsibility of each individual developer to integrate themselves into the overall community, and that it should not be the role of the social committee to inject an artificial measure of cultural sensitivity beyond what the project as a whole is actually capable of sustaining. And OTOH, I think to some degree recognition of cultural differences falls out *naturally* from any social committee whose charter includes rapprochement instead of just judgement and sentencing. If rapprochement is your goal, all the cultural background that contributes to explaining *why* an individual views a situation the way they do is much less important than understanding *that* they understand the situation in that way. Are we planning on taking into account things like cultural differences? Or is the decision going to be that the majority rule (or the dominant culture) be the governing one? Do you take into account cultural differences every time you send a mail to a mailing list or reply to a bug report, or do you allow your cultural ideas to dominate by virtue of your position of authority (as a package maintainer or as a community elder)? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ [1] There have been a number of mailing list threads over the past year that have opened my own eyes to just how different American culture is from French and Belgian culture in some ways, in spite of these countries supposedly sharing a common overall Western heritage -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:40 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The first set of comments I have is related to efficacy, and, perhaps, the notion of fairness. There is a fundamental difference between a technical committee and a social committee: a technical issue is likely to be far less subjective http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=162;bug=367709 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=177;bug=367709 Ruling based on the technical details of a question is apparently no defense against accusations of subjectivity anyway. Nor are any of our existing poor methods for dealing with social problems any less subjective, so I don't think this is a reason not to proceed. Err, anyone can be accused of anything at anytime, apparently, on Debian lists; so that is not really the point. Also, why would you think anyone is talking about not proceeding? The point is disputes over technical matters are inherently different from disputes of social issues. If you don't see that, I suppose we have little basis for further discussion -- I am finding it hard to explain what seems like a self evident fact to me. and while there are tradeoff aspects to technical problems, it is far easier to come up with reasons for the trade offs, and a rationale for selecting one option over the other, and do so in a relatively objective fashion. The weighting of the trade-offs is always subjective. But the rationale of the tradeoffs can be objective, as can an explanation for why more weight is being placed on one side or the other. The technical committee works not because it's more *objective*, but because it's configured so that its particular subjectivity is biased in favor of institutional stability (= the status quo), which means developers are more likely to be accepting of such decisions because on some level the TC's bias shares an overall alignment with their own. In other words, we share a common technical culture. This is not the case for social culture of the community; and this distinction would tend to make a difference, in my opinion. I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been taken to address cultural diversity in the dispute resolution process. I frankly think this is a red herring. The society that the social committee is purposed to serve is not Chinese, or American, or Middle-Eastern, or French, or Indian, or German, or Japanese; it's Debian as a society per se that must be served by this committee. The issue is not whether the soc-ctte server the culture of outer mongolia, or not; the issue is whether the committee recognizes the cause belli; failure to do so would make rapproachment more ... difficult. Now each member of the project is going to bring his or her own cultural preconceptions to the table, to be sure[1], and the overall Debian culture is certainly going to reflect to some degree the mother culture of the predominant subgroups (whether that's predominance in terms of numbers, contributions, key positions held within the project, or volume of mailing list posts). But I think it's the responsibility of each individual developer to integrate themselves into the overall community, and that it should not be the role of the social committee to inject an artificial measure of cultural sensitivity beyond what the project as a whole is actually capable of sustaining. I am not sure I agree that Debian as the melting pot is a viable idea. And I find the concept of cultural hegemony (in other words, Debian culture is dictated by the predominant subgroups, everyone else better fall in line) mildly distasteful. But if this is the will of the masses, I suppose I must give in. And OTOH, I think to some degree recognition of cultural differences falls out *naturally* from any social committee whose charter includes rapprochement instead of just judgement and sentencing. If rapprochement is your goal, all the cultural background that contributes to explaining *why* an individual views a situation the way they do is much less important than understanding *that* they understand the situation in that way. My point was that unless care is taken in ensuring the ctte diversity, the ctte might not even be aware that one of the disputants views a situation differently (and why they might not be open to explaining that); far less than knowing the reasons behind the views. Are we planning on taking into account things like cultural differences? Or is the decision going to be that the majority rule (or the dominant culture) be the governing one? Do you take into account cultural differences every time you send a
