Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. ... furthermore, as TC chair, Bdale is one of only two people in the project who are ineligible to be Secretary. He certainly has not accepted a temporary position as Secretary. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert, I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive proposal and actions post-lenny. As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any government as an organization) body. The 'consitution' and 'social contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by action or inaction. If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other developers. If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes sense then that is what sticks, regardless of what you think the 'rules' say. This isn't like 'real' world government where you take the government to court and force it to do something it doesn't want to do because of the constitution. The bodies that determine what the constitution means (DPL, CTTE(?), etc) are the people you trying to beat over the head with it. I'm not convinced you could even get seconds on a GR regarding this and even if you could all you would do is make the majority of the project (at best) irritated with you. I repeat, pick your battles (actually preferably find a cooperative way of achieving the same goal, say a month after lenny releases). This horse is dead; quit flogging it. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Hi Mike, I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you try rephrasing it? Neil -- Ganneff Maulkin: there is no html tag Ganneff (yet? could be extended like Gannefffoo/Ganneff - Ganneff kills foo?) :) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Ganhe Iphone/Eee Asus/Gps
http://www.g2usadoscertificados.pt/quiz/?referer=9eb486bfdc8b774a15e289d574e26e54 Ganha -iphone 3g-247 unidades disponiveis-Asus Eee-307 unidades disponiveis-Gps acer-134 unidades disponiveis Quanto mais rapido se registar mais rapido ganha! Para ganhar iphone: Convide 90 amigos.Para ganhar asus eee: Convide 50 amigos.Para ganhar Gps acer: Convide 25 amigos. O registo é gratis e não paga qualquer custo adicional.O g2usadoscerteficados reune mais de 300 viaturas de varias marcas, usadas mas com certeficado de bom estado e garantia de 24 meses. Registe-se e ajudem-me a ganhar tambem. _ Organize seus contatos! O jeito mais fácil de manter a sua lista de amigos sempre em ordem! http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/events.aspx
Re: New Technical Committee Members
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: Anthony Towns recently announced his decision to step down from the Debian Technical Committee: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/01/msg6.html I thank him on behalf of the rest of the committee and the project for his contributions over the last three years! With this change, the remaining members of the committee are: chairman Bdale Garbee member Andreas Barth member Ian Jackson member Steve Langasek member Manoj Srivastava As per Constitution section 6.2, we discussed a number of potential additions to the committee, with the full engagement and support of Debian Project Leader Steve McIntyre. It gives me great pleasure to welcome Russ Allbery and Don Armstrong as the newest members of the Technical Committee. If I understand things right, you can add new members until the number reaches 6 and can then proposed new members to the DPL. And Steve organised the vote to add Russ (which got approved), and propose Don to the DPL. Andreas said that with 3 of the 5 votes for proposing Don the vote is over. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL still needs to approve it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Technical Committee Members
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 18:50 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: If I understand things right, you can add new members until the number reaches 6 and can then proposed new members to the DPL. Since my invitations to the new members were issued after unanimous agreement by the existing members of the technical committee *and* the DPL in private discussion, I made the mistake of assuming we were done. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL still needs to approve it. Point taken. If the remainder of the (former) committee members would please take a moment to complete the two trivial acceptance ballots, we'll certainly cross the necessary threshold, and I'm sure Steve will be quick to follow up with a suitable assertion of support. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Technical Committee Members
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 06:50:02PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:57:31AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Russ Allbery and Don Armstrong as the newest members of the Technical Committee. If I understand things right, you can add new members until the number reaches 6 and can then proposed new members to the DPL. And Steve organised the vote to add Russ (which got approved), and propose Don to the DPL. Andreas said that with 3 of the 5 votes for proposing Don the vote is over. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL still needs to approve it. We've discussed this and I'm entirely happy to accept the TC's recommendations for new members. Doubly so, as I personally recommended both! Until now, I just hadn't said so publically. Fixed. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Debian Project Leader lea...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these passages from the constitution are good for, then? The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers. (5.3) The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, [...] (6.3.6) The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the Developers. (7.3) Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion. (8.3) Yes, the constitution says the release team should let itself be guided by consensus opinion. It doesn't say that a vote is necessary to establish this. As Russ Allbery pointed out, the constitution also tells you what you can do if you think the release team is doing the wrong thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New Technical Committee Members
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [090112 18:39]: And Steve organised the vote to add Russ (which got approved), and propose Don to the DPL. Andreas said that with 3 of the 5 votes for proposing Don the vote is over. But I think it's only 3 of 6 at that point, and the DPL still needs to approve it. If you look at the timestamps of the 3rd votes, you might notice that Don reached 3 votes in favour before the vote for Russ was finished. So, according to the constitution, at that point the outcome was no longer in doubt, and the vote was finished. I do admit that 36 seconds later Russ was added to the tech ctte, but at that time the vote was already finished, and I fail to find a regulation in the constitution that declares that the vote reopens under such circumstances. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything. In the majority of instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the option of overriding or recalling them if they don't. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it, your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this? Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind? How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the last? Please hurt another project, not Debian, we had enough of this already. It is true that the project wants to release. It is not true that the project wants to release on just any terms whatsoever. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) Sure, how about a deal. Lenny will be the *last* release with this non-DFSG stuff, and we'll go away for this one. I thought that was the deal last time, but it turns out that just this once is repeated in Debian about as often as copyright extension bills in the US Congress. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of desire by the voters that we release Lenny. Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a good one. That means we don't release until it's ready--which in my view includes DFSG bugs just as much as other RC bugs. The option that won the vote does not say release Lenny no matter what, it says, release Lenny, not looking to carefully at DFSG problems in firmware blobs, more or less. It was a carefully worded option, and it won; it is a mistake to substitute for it something like release Lenny no matter what, and then to proceed to ignore the clear statement of the winning option that *only* firmware blobs get the special treatment. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything. That's why I said everything significant. Compromising on our core principles is one of the things I consider significant. In the majority of instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the option of overriding or recalling them if they don't. I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help you or anybody. I don't see how even option 1 would have delayed Lenny. I just see that it would have forced a few patches to be applied. But we got option 5 instead. You claim this has delayed Lenny. Please explain how. It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last issue. Please drop it for now. You're writing with the assumption that fixing DFSG violations is fundamentally incompatible with releasing Lenny soon. I can see that this could be true for some cases, where critical functionality is affected, but for most of them (including firmware) I don't see any correlation. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread. Thanks in advance -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't like it. I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. Priceless. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpqd6oJvCkzw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not going to be adopted at present. There's nothing to be adopted. The project as a whole thinks of the Social Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with that doesn't change things. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous, and that his interpretation is based on his speculation on what he thinks the developers want. This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread. Priceless. That goes for you, too. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. I disagree completely. The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitution currently says. 4 would have granted more sweeping powers if it had passed, but that doesn't change the current situation or the fact that the release team has the power to make this decision unless a developer override passes. Several of us pointed this out during the vote. As stated previously, I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of the constitution, but neither of us are going to change each other's mind and the people who are in a position to do something about it don't appear to agree with your interpretation. Attempting to read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable, given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional interpretation at all. (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement would be non-binding anyway, although had one passed even with a simple majority I expect most developers would give it a great deal of weight.) I am not claiming that the vote supports my position either. It doesn't provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend time worrying about the licensing of firmware. The winning option in the vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before the GR began. This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; it combined multiple issues and the available options didn't each cover all the issues being voted on. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. This doesn't change anything. When he accepted his position as TC chair, he was accepting that he could become Acting Secretary under certain circumstances. It's not like he was blackmailed to become Secretary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote: As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any government as an organization) body. The 'consitution' and 'social contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by action or inaction. Agreed. If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other developers. Indeed. If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes sense Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this interpretation are the ones making the most noise. If you want to know for real, check the vote results. You'll see how option 2 beats option 4. And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as necessary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Hi Mike, I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you try rephrasing it? I found it pretty easy to understand; I wonder what's causing you trouble. I'll try rephrasing Mike's words: Mike Bird, rephrased by Ben Finney: | Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level | of careful analysis of this issue. | | Robert Millan has at times come close to Manoj's level of careful | analysis of this issue. But the non-existent cabal apparently | hates him as much as they hated Manoj. | | This hatred is evident because the responses to Robert's questions | are mostly insults and personal attacks, of a type that would | cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Does that help? -- \ “Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather | `\ straps.” —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote: Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this interpretation are the ones making the most noise. Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the number of posts from anybody else? Could you also please count the number of people actively supporting your position and compare that to the number of people you can expect to be following this discussion? I think it is safe to assume in this case that the silent majority does indeed support the interpretation set out by the acting Secretary. Please give it up, or at the very least STOP spamming the mailing lists by replying to each and every post. Make your point once, and make it well. The endless repetition is getting tiresome. Please limit the number of posts you send in a day to a maximum of 2 or 3. I do have some sympathy for your position (though from a totally different perspective and totally different reasons), but you really are on a crusade that is never going to go anywhere. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. I disagree completely. The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitution currently says. You mean what it says, or ... I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of the constitution, ... your interpretation of what it says? Attempting to read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable, given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional interpretation at all. No, but it's very clear about developers preferring the option that doesn't gives this power to the RT over the option that does. (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement would be non-binding anyway, Interesting to see 3:1 come back. One of the most annoying things about super-majority requirements is that they appear and disappear depending on the position one is holding. That's why I would very much like to get rid of them. So I take it you didn't agree with Manoj's decision to set super-majority requirements in the ballot? It doesn't provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend time worrying about the licensing of firmware. Results are clear for me. You'll notice that I'm not complaining about firmware right now. But the same goes both ways: people should accept the results when it comes to non-firmware. The winning option in the vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before the GR began. Technically yes, but politically the situation is much different. The developers had a number of options that explicitly granted more exceptions, and they preferred the one that didn't. This tells us something about what the majority of us wants, and you shouldn't neglect it. Of course, you can object that it wasn't an explicit assertion, etc, but from general consensus to explicit assertion there's only one small step. Keep that in mind. This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (12/01/2009): And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as necessary. We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. Bdale, After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here. So please bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less serious problem, but at least more sympathethic. I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making tough decisions, and being responsible for them. You decided that the ballot was good enough to be voted on; you could have cancelled the vote, or you could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you didn't. Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the ballot myself. However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results, what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and badly worded. You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a significant part of it, but that doesn't matter: you already decided the ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound to your own decision. So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the ballot. I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of not doing anything, you have my support on that. I don't usually participate in these discussions (so I can be considered a member of the silent majority), but this thread has been going on for long enough for me to want to voice my opinion. Personally, I'm happy with Bdale's interpretation of the vote, and I think that you need to make peace with the fact that vast majority of developers is more pragmatic than you, when it comes to DFSG compliance and interpretation. As such, I would be happy to see us proceed with Lenny release based on the results of the vote. If this is not acceptable for you, as a developer you are entitled to affect this outcome using a number of different options available (and I'm not talking about trying to convince anyone by repeating the same thing over and over). Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Voting on messages: a way to resolve the mailing list problems
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 06:05:09PM +, Jurij Smakov wrote: Another point is that most people are probably going to be pretty busy with holiday stuff over the last couple of weeks (I'm leaving for a two-week vacation myself tomorrow), so we'll have to get back to implementation details in the New Year. I was thinking about creating an Alioth project for it, but I'm open to other ideas. The 'mailvoting' alioth project [0] has been created. There are also two mailing lists, 'mailvoting-discuss' and 'mailvoting-devel', for general discussion and implementation discussion, respectively. Please subscribe [1] to them, if you are interested in contributing. [0] http://mailvoting.alioth.debian.org/ [1] http://alioth.debian.org/mail/?group_id=100282 Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote: This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it. The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be cancelled. So Bdale has let it run knowing that the conclusions that could be drawn would be limited anyway. Now please stop flooding the list and get back to something more productive. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
I give up (for the time being)
Hi It's not usual in me to give up on something when I'm completely certain that I'm right. I hope you appreciate that I'm doing a great personal sacrifice here. Ean said: Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds and makes sane discourse impossible. I've been pondering on that statement, and I think it's the most insightful point that has been made in this thread. I've gradually confirmed to be true over the course of the discussion. There's no point in insist that people shouldn't be irrationally committed to releasing Lenny. Feelings aren't supposed to be rational, just like my course of action hasn't been completely rational either. I realize that insisting too hard precisely at this time has the opposite effect to the goals I was trying to defend. So, I'll stop now. Do not think this means the problem just got solved. I only do it because I expect we can have a healthy discussion about it after Lenny is released. Best wishes to everyone, -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
