Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote [edited]: You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz What do you think? :D WRT the pics of the campaign, I find the ensuing discussion rather unproductive without an agreed upon set of objectives and the tradeoffs involved, eg. - What's the relative priority of the different groups of people we're aiming at? DDs and potential new contributors? corporate users? individual users? In other words, should the campaign focus in say attracting more corporate users, or more hackers applying for membership? (pixegirl says people outside the organisation, some debian folks disagree) - Do we want the campaign to be contentious (I'd think not) or as far as possibly inoffensive (and again, these perceptions vary among different kinds of groups)? Seems like many debian folks find pixelgirl's work of high quality but not meeting the desirable tradeoffs. Has there been an agreement or even a discussion about these tradeoffs in any debian list? -S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - status update
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
least some of its parts. In particular, the part about expiration
of DD rights received only minor criticisms; criticisms which I've
tried to address.
Here is a status update.
My reading of the discussion which followed the initial proposal is
that we have consensus on the general idea; yet, there are small
divergences on some details (e.g., 1 year vs 2 year, when/if
notifying, ...).
Since, AFAIR, DAM has not commented in the thread, in the last days I
contacted a DAM representative (Joerg Jaspert) in private to seek
comments on the idea. The bottom line is that DAM is fine with the
proposed changes and is willing to replace (manual) WAT runs [2] with
an automatic mechanism like the one we discussed. I also pinged DSA,
which reasonably considers this discussion none of its business and
will happily implement whatever the project and DAM decide on the
matter.
According to constitution and delegation, DAM is already fully
empowered to implement the proposed changes and also has the freedom
to decide upon the details. Hence, I personally don't think we need a
vote on this issue. Once ready, DAM can announce the change via the
usual channels, possibly referencing the thread at [1] as evidence of
discussion of the issue within the project.
Of course, if some of us is in utter disagreement with the proposal
(or with the forthcoming implementation), she has the usual right to
call for a vote on a more specific proposal. Since I'm happy with the
current/forthcoming state of affairs, I will not do that.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/07/msg00067.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/07/msg4.html
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian redesign
Hello, Good questions. And could be added: what values Debian Project wants to be known for? Debian products outcomes have solid values and worth. It should be easier to communicate with truth at your side. The suitable place for these discussions is the debian-publicity list [0]. There are qualified and or interested people regarding these subjects. Even so, the Pixel Girl proposal is broad in scope and debian-www and debian-desktop teams should also be involved. This will involve a good amount of teams work coordination and communication. Regards. Andre Felipe Machado [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/ [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/ [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-desktop/ Em Dom, 2009-08-02 às 10:14 +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas escreveu: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote [edited]: You can take a look at her presentation at: https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz What do you think? :D WRT the pics of the campaign, I find the ensuing discussion rather unproductive without an agreed upon set of objectives and the tradeoffs involved, eg. - What's the relative priority of the different groups of people we're aiming at? DDs and potential new contributors? corporate users? individual users? In other words, should the campaign focus in say attracting more corporate users, or more hackers applying for membership? (pixegirl says people outside the organisation, some debian folks disagree) - Do we want the campaign to be contentious (I'd think not) or as far as possibly inoffensive (and again, these perceptions vary among different kinds of groups)? Seems like many debian folks find pixelgirl's work of high quality but not meeting the desirable tradeoffs. Has there been an agreement or even a discussion about these tradeoffs in any debian list? -S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian redesign
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 07:04:18PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: [snip] Our current logo's font is [1]Poppl Laudatio Condensed and Berthold sells under different types of licensing, including World Wide licenses. There seems to be some different free alternatives like LaudatioC, but I would say that we can use the same idea gave during the talk about Debian redesign and implement a free alternative for it. (Or somebody can wonder how much would cost a World Wide license :) 1. http://www.bertholdtypes.com/bq_library/90090.html You know, licensing commercial data rather than producing a libre version of it seems to be quite at odds with the Debian way of things. I certainly like the Debian logo, so I don't mind the typeface as such, but I think we should at least use a free version of it. If there's none, we should either use some Debian funds to commission someone to make it (if there's a willing and talented typograph to be found) or change to a different typeface. [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall t...@debian.org /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:42:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 31 July 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: I don't believe the kind of coarse synchronization that's been proposed for the releases would make Debian-Ubuntu crossgrades significantly easier. Most of the local changes that Ubuntu has today would still apply, and there are rebuilt binaries that share version numbers, introducing all kinds of fun possibilities. paranoid Right. So Ubuntu can put its paid developers to work to create a tested upgrade path from Debian to Ubuntu and Ubuntu can go off with its publicity budget and promote itself with that feature. How fun. I see zero benefit for Debian there. /paranoid Did you somehow read my comment in the opposite sense, or is this a very special kind of paranoia indeed to conclude that Canonical is going to invest extraordinary amounts of engineering effort for the express purpose of stealing Debian users, and this only once the releases are in sync, when arguably this would have been equally feasible at any previous point? -- 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: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - status update
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroliz...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at least some of its parts. In particular, the part about expiration of DD rights received only minor criticisms; criticisms which I've tried to address. Here is a status update. My reading of the discussion which followed the initial proposal is that we have consensus on the general idea; yet, there are small divergences on some details (e.g., 1 year vs 2 year, when/if notifying, ...). some questions I still see without a clear answer: - who will decide the above (and below) details? are they left to the implementors? I believe the proposal should contains some sort of lower limits (what if they decide 1 month of inactivity is enough? ok it's purely hypotetical, but it still applies). - what's your ETA for this proposal to be operative? - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database, along with DDs? - what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this proposal? - will the MIA team be dismantled? who's in charge of this? will you take care of removing all the traces of MIA team from Debian documentations (like wiki, devref, etc) or from wherever is referenced? (of course, if we decide to remove it and not archive) or edit them, where needed? - what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've received? should we reply please wait for this to be approved? should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not that motivated to work on something that's dying.) Since, AFAIR, DAM has not commented in the thread, in the last days I contacted a DAM representative (Joerg Jaspert) in private to seek comments on the idea. The bottom line is that DAM is fine with the proposed changes and is willing to replace (manual) WAT runs [2] with an automatic mechanism like the one we discussed. I also pinged DSA, which reasonably considers this discussion none of its business and will happily implement whatever the project and DAM decide on the matter. I do believe it would have been nice if you contacted (not saying discuss with) the MIA team about this proposal (since the team main activities are under discussion here), either before or after your made it public. According to constitution and delegation, DAM is already fully empowered to implement the proposed changes and also has the freedom to decide upon the details. Hence, I personally don't think we need a vote on this issue. Once ready, DAM can announce the change via the usual channels, possibly referencing the thread at [1] as evidence of discussion of the issue within the project. Of course, if some of us is in utter disagreement with the proposal (or with the forthcoming implementation), she has the usual right to call for a vote on a more specific proposal. Since I'm happy with the current/forthcoming state of affairs, I will not do that. ok, I'm kinda agnostic about it, so I just sit and wait to see what will happen. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - status update
Sandro Tosi wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroliz...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at least some of its parts. In particular, the part about expiration of DD rights received only minor criticisms; criticisms which I've tried to address. Here is a status update. My reading of the discussion which followed the initial proposal is that we have consensus on the general idea; yet, there are small divergences on some details (e.g., 1 year vs 2 year, when/if notifying, ...). some questions I still see without a clear answer: - who will decide the above (and below) details? are they left to the implementors? I believe the proposal should contains some sort of lower limits (what if they decide 1 month of inactivity is enough? ok it's purely hypotetical, but it still applies). DAM. Well, when DAM would decide too restrictive, one could try to convince them to do otherwise or even overrule them. - what's your ETA for this proposal to be operative? That's up to DAM. - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database, along with DDs? Nothing changes regarding MIA. - what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this proposal? Like with the WAT runs, there will very probably be a feedback to the MIA Team. - will the MIA team be dismantled? who's in charge of this? will you take care of removing all the traces of MIA team from Debian documentations (like wiki, devref, etc) or from wherever is referenced? (of course, if we decide to remove it and not archive) or edit them, where needed? You are mixing WAT and MIA apparently. The current proposal may replace the DAM's WAT runs AFAICS, it does *not* affect MIA except from the feedback generated after deactivation of DDs. - what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've received? should we reply please wait for this to be approved? should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not that motivated to work on something that's dying.) There is no reason at all to change processing. Since, AFAIR, DAM has not commented in the thread, in the last days I contacted a DAM representative (Joerg Jaspert) in private to seek comments on the idea. The bottom line is that DAM is fine with the proposed changes and is willing to replace (manual) WAT runs [2] with an automatic mechanism like the one we discussed. I also pinged DSA, which reasonably considers this discussion none of its business and will happily implement whatever the project and DAM decide on the matter. I do believe it would have been nice if you contacted (not saying discuss with) the MIA team about this proposal (since the team main activities are under discussion here), either before or after your made it public. You seem to misunderstand the proposal AFAICS. The MIA Team would still be operative for non DDs in general and for DDs in a proactive way (aka during the inactivity period). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
