Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 05:06:12PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I've been reminded [1] that we're still pending implementation of the
General Resolution entitled Declassification of debian-private list
archives [2].
snip
If you are interested please mail lea...@d.o with your declaration of
interest.
Status update on this. We got some volunteers, but no one with actually
enough free time to start doing the declassification right now. In fact,
more than that, what is needed is someone to set up a sustainable work
flow to both declassify in batch all the back log and then to keep up
routinely with the new stuff that can be declassified.
All that anticipated, it would be pointless to keep on reiterating call
for helps on this in the future (e.g. at each DPL change :)). So, with
the help of the secretary, we've added the following notice to the vote
page [2]:
Note: This resolution is currently being implemented, but is not fully
deployed yet. Check the status page for more information.
where status page is an anchor pointing to [1], that contains the
following text:
Debian is more than willing to keep up to its promises and implement
what the outcome of this GR requires. Still, the declassification
cannot happen per se, but rather needs Debian Developer volunteers to
actually do that.
Until a suitable team of volunteers with the energy to work on the
issue shows up, this GR will remain not implemented.
Bottom line: help is needed. If you are interested to help, please
check the last call for help on the matter and contact
lea...@debian.org to volunteer.
Ideally, in your mail you should come up with a suitable
declassification work flow for both past messages and for new messages
that daily become declassifiable.
If anyone of you want to see this happen, you know what to do and/or you
can point other people to that page.
Cheers.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianPrivateDeclassification
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
--
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: Support timeframe
On 06/23/2010 07:22 PM, Steve Smith wrote: The reason why I ask is because we have a hardware appliance that is based on Debian and we are working on upgrading to version 5. Because the previous version is not longer supported, we need to provide a patch policy for our appliance. If you're still working on that, it might make sense to skip Lenny and upgrade to Squeeze directly. Its a good time to test things now and come out with the finished product when Squeeze is released, or probably a bit after that. The freeze time is more or less fixed now. As usual in Debian - which is a community effort mostly - you can get a release quicker or longer security support for a release, if you pay somebody to do so. There are several companies and consultants who employ/are Debian developers and would be willing to do such a job. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c246e6a.9060...@bzed.de
Re: Support timeframe
On 25/06/2010 10:52, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: As usual in Debian - which is a community effort mostly - you can get a release quicker or longer security support for a release, if you pay somebody to do so. There are several companies and consultants who employ/are Debian developers and would be willing to do such a job. And if in the end that means there are more people working on security updates for (old)stable release, that means it benefits every user. Sure, the support might be on very specific packages, not all the distribution, meaning the security team can't extend the supported time, but it's still better than nothing :) Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c2473d8.1050...@debian.org
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Status update on this. We got some volunteers, but no one with actually enough free time to start doing the declassification right now. In fact, I have the gut feeling that this declassification issue is some kind of RFP bug which nobody really wants to pick. If you ask me if I would prefer people working on fixing RC bugs or rather reading piles of old mails to decide about declasification or not I would have a clear answer. IMHO we should rethink the issue: In how far is spending time into declassification of old E-Mails helpful for our users and Debian as a project. Just to prove we are open (except of about 10% of the not declassification mails)? Does anybody think that some thousand of people after declassification of mails will start reading those old stuff? To get me correct: I'm not against declassification in general and I'd be fine if all my mails to debian-pr would be published - but the effort to do the actual work just drains time from people who could spend their time more effectively for the good of Debian. Kind regards Andreas. PS: Stefano, all people who disagree with my mail are obviosely volunteers for the declassification team and will probably start working on it soon. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625083624.ga9...@an3as.eu
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:36:24AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
I have the gut feeling that this declassification issue is some kind of
RFP bug which nobody really wants to pick. If you ask me if I would
prefer people working on fixing RC bugs or rather reading piles of old
mails to decide about declasification or not I would have a clear
answer.
snip
PS: Stefano, all people who disagree with my mail are obviosely
volunteers for the declassification team and will probably start
working on it soon.
I surely agree that, having to choose on where we should put energies,
fixing RC bugs is a way better investment of volunteer time (.. and I
hope this is enough to avoid being hit by your side rule :-)). But this
is not the point here: the point is rather that we had a vote on the
matter, we decided as a project that such archives shall be
declassified. Now it's time to keep up with what we promised.
Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine:
we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff.
Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement
our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be
implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the
vote page are enough of a message in that respect.
If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting
on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at
the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails.
.oO( vote is cheap, show me the volunteers ?)
Cheers.
--
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-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:57:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: But this is not the point here: the point is rather that we had a vote on the matter, we decided as a project that such archives shall be declassified. Now it's time to keep up with what we promised. I clearly remember that vote. But how much sense does this vote make if nobody does the actual work? Voting about a decision is cheap, but doing the work is not. Normally you vote between comparable options. We voted between no work at all, just proceed as before and doing an in principle reasonable thing which cases a lot of work (not to mention triggering fatal failures). If you ask me the voting was based only on in principle reasonable but not on I want to do this work. Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine: we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff. Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the vote page are enough of a message in that respect. To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do this work, he should probably pay for this. IMHO this kind of work needs some more motivation than just that some people decided. If nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest in getting the work done. (And I personally would vote against spending Debian's own money for this.) If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails. .oO( vote is cheap, show me the volunteers ?) Yep. IMHO the vote is just void and was done in an emotional heat. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625111942.gb14...@an3as.eu
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
* Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org [100625 12:57]: Apparently ATM we don't have the energy to do that. That is just fine: we are all volunteers and we cannot be forced to do specific stuff. Still, we need to show our honesty, clarify our willingness to implement our decision, and make clear the needed conditions for that GR to be implemented. I believe that the wiki page and the pointer to it from the vote page are enough of a message in that respect. If anything, this episode might also help us realize that before voting on a matter (or proposing to vote on a matter) we should think twice at the possibility of keeping up with what the vote entails. .oO( vote is cheap, show me the volunteers ?) Even if not acted on, the vote still has the advantage that it specifies a proper process. We do not need any heated discussions next time and noone can claim they did not know something like this would happen with their mail. And if someone complains they cannot quote some publically or use in some scientific paper they can be told they just need to volunteer I might be too much looking at Debian from the inside, but I never considered it to have any effect without volunteers willing to do so. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625114435.ga8...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:19:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
I clearly remember that vote. But how much sense does this vote make if
nobody does the actual work? Voting about a decision is cheap, but
doing the work is not. Normally you vote between comparable options.
We voted between no work at all, just proceed as before and doing an
in principle reasonable thing which cases a lot of work (not to mention
triggering fatal failures). If you ask me the voting was based only on
in principle reasonable but not on I want to do this work.
I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it
is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action
than the status quo.
The vote is there and we cannot change the past; the vote gives a
process (as Bernhard observed in a different post) and shows our
willingness to be transparent. Are you proposing to state explicitly
that the vote is moot? I disagree, it is not. Still it is currently not
implemented. The only thing that has changed is that we now clearly
state that it is so and detail what is needed to go forward. Are you
against any of the above? I personally see no regression in all that.
To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do
this work, he should probably pay for this. IMHO this kind of work
needs some more motivation than just that some people decided. If
nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the
content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest
in getting the work done. (And I personally would vote against spending
Debian's own money for this.)
This is a very slippery rope: it is us who voted, not someone external
to the project; arguing now that that someone should pay, if she really
cares about obtaining the result, sounds very weird. But OK, that was
just to heat the discussion (do we really need that?), so I probably
shouldn't have bitten :)
Cheers.
--
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-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Friday 25 June 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I'm not sure I understand against *what* exactly you're arguing; nor it is clear to me whether you are proposing a different course of action than the status quo. The vote is there and we cannot change the past [...] I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public that their authors do not want to be made public. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006251446.03481.elen...@planet.nl
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:59:53PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The vote is there and we cannot change the past; I do not want to change the past. the vote gives a process (as Bernhard observed in a different post) and shows our willingness to be transparent. Are you proposing to state explicitly that the vote is moot? No it is not. In the sense of Bernd the vote just shows our willingness. But the effect of the vote is in my opinion not more. (In a similar way we could vote on having nice weather conditions next summer. I would agree on this, but I think there is nothing we can really do about the realisation of this vote.) I disagree, it is not. Still it is currently not implemented. The only thing that has changed is that we now clearly state that it is so and detail what is needed to go forward. Are you against any of the above? I personally see no regression in all that. I do not want to stop any volunteer to do the work. I just doubt there will be anybody. To throw in some fire into the discussion: If somebody want's us to do this work, he should probably pay for this. IMHO this kind of work needs some more motivation than just that some people decided. If nobody is willing to pay for the work which has to be done (not the content which is free for sure) there is obviosely not enough interest in getting the work done. (And I personally would vote against spending Debian's own money for this.) This is a very slippery rope: Yes, this was intended. it is us who voted, not someone external to the project; To stick to my example above: If we would vote on good weather conditions, do you think we are really responsible to start working on this just because we voted on it? You just have no handle on volunteers to do a boring job like this. arguing now that that someone should pay, if she really cares about obtaining the result, sounds very weird. Well not really. We agreed that somebody is *allowed* to do the work (instead of keeping the information secret). We did not voted on the means which are needed that someone really does the work. (If I remember correctly I *intentionally* did not voted on this GR because I was wondering who would really do the work.) My ulterior motive in this suggestion was: How we can practically find out whether some is *really* interested in a work which consumes a team of DDs spare time. But OK, that was just to heat the discussion (do we really need that?), so I probably shouldn't have bitten :) Yes, the main motivation was do we really need that? and stretching the idea a bit to some provoking ends. Also my answer to your arguing was not completely honest, just continue provoking. And I go even further: I will probably not continue to spend my time on discussing this issue - it is probably wasted as well, because it just does not change the issue as it is. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625124434.gc17...@an3as.eu
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes: I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public that their authors do not want to be made public. +1. Then people wouldn't have to keep putting this is private in messages and could just assume it. If there aren't enough volunteers to do the work anyway, we're wasting low levels of energy making people aware of this right now. -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zkyjqczq@windlord.stanford.edu
Overview of Debian's financial flows
Hi Here is an overview of the most important financial flows of money hold on Debian's behalf this year up to May 31st. January: SPI [0] (in USD): * donations:+ 9,849.73 * freight: - 3,372.66 * hard drives: - 1,138.35 * processing fees: -23.68 * SPI 5%: - 142.58 * travel reimbursement: - 1,030.13 ffis [1] (in EUR): * donations:+ 721.11 * BSP Moenchengladbach - 297.50 * new backup server - 7,607.48 February: - SPI (in USD): * donations:+ 2,039.00 * Debian Edu sponsoring:- 5,022.00 * Processing Fees: -70.96 * BSP New York: -19.92 * SPI 5%: - 101.95 * travel reimbursement: - 1,085.06 ffis (in EUR): * donations:+ 100.00 * travel reimbursement - 500.00 March: -- SPI (in USD): * donations:+ 4,759.35 * DebConf Housing: - 28,620.00 * DebConf Liability Ins: - 390.00 * Incoming Wire Fee:-15.00 * Panama Mini DebConf: - 1,100.00 * Processing Fees: -26.93 * Spanish Mini DebConf: - 2,061.15 * SPI 5%: -44.97 * travel reimbursement: - 2,826.31 ffis (in EUR): * donations:+ 216.11 April: -- SPI (in USD): * donations:+ 1,888.15 * Candy for LH: -67.00 * Hardware for MIPS:-76.29 * Processing Fees: -66.76 * SPI 5%: -54.91 * Trademark Reg:- 500.00 * travel reimbursement: - 602.31 ffis (in EUR): * donations:+51.11 * Groupware Meeting:- 240.00 * travel reimbursement: - 719.43 May: SPI (in USD): * donations: + 41,199.65 * DebConf DayTrip: - 1,003.50 * new archive server: - 17,051.35 * Processing Fees: - 242.51 * SPI 5%: -46.20 * travel reimbursement: - 5,472.59 ffis (in EUR): * donations:+ 547.11 Note that DebConf financial flows are included in SPI's figures, though mentioned separately where easily possible. Also note that some of the sponsoring for meetings and Debian Edu is (or will be) used by its organisers for travel reimbursement. More information about the Debian Auditor's role and the list of organisations holding assets in trust for Debian can be found on the wiki [2]. Cheers Luk [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/ [1] http://www.ffis.de/ [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Auditor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c24e91e.4000...@debian.org
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On 25/06/2010 07:43 μμ, Russ Allbery wrote: I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public that their authors do not want to be made public. +1. Then people wouldn't have to keep putting this is private in messages and could just assume it. If there aren't enough volunteers to do the work anyway, we're wasting low levels of energy making people aware of this right now. I agree as well. There's no point in making promises we cannot fulfill; if anything, it makes us look bad. We should just accept the fact that noone will ever re-read a big pile of old, heated, discussions and vacation notices just to publicize parts of them. The time plus the risk of making a mistake (and the fallout of that) just doesn't worth it. Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c24f9ce.8070...@debian.org
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
[Andreas Tille] I do not want to stop any volunteer to do the work. I just doubt there will be anybody. In other words, 1. You think declassification is not worth anyone's time 2. You are not volunteering to do it 3. You don't want to stop other people from volunteering to do it Why even bother to post? Seems to me you could have accomplished all three points by just not hitting Reply. My ulterior motive in this suggestion was: How we can practically find out whether some is *really* interested in a work which consumes a team of DDs spare time. What does that matter? There are lots of things DDs do that we don't know for sure if any users will care. If you don't want to waste your time doing those things, then don't. But what's the point of a thread discussing whether or not somebody other than you will decide to do some work you don't think is useful? -- Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625220522.ga3...@p12n.org
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Frans Pop wrote: I would welcome a new GR to rescind the previous one and revert d-private to what it's always been: private. That way we can stop worrying about the whole issue and we will no longer run the risk of making things public that their authors do not want to be made public. My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be declassified automatically after three years. Unfortunatly, a large majority[1] of the messages to -private shouldn't be private in the first place, or they only need to be embargoed for a short period of time. [I think I've sent more messages to people requesting that they not continue non-private (or just plain useless) threads in -private than I've read messages which were actually useful and contained information that needed to be on -private.] Don Armstrong 1: Ignoring VAC messages, of course. -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625222014.gt31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:20:14PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote [edited]: My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be declassified automatically after three years. +1 When I first read the resolution, it really surprised me as to how bureaucratic the defined process is, as opposed to something amenable to automation. -S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625224649.ga7...@mobee
Re: debian-private declassification team (looking for one)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010, Frans Pop wrote: On Saturday 26 June 2010, Don Armstrong wrote: My own opinion is that we've done this backwards, and that everything on -private modulo vacation messages and posts explicitely marked with a header indicating that they shouldn't be declassified should be declassified automatically after three years. But that's not what the project decided to do, so it's rather moot. It may be moot for the current -private archives, but we can always change going forward.[1] Unfortunatly, a large majority[1] of the messages to -private shouldn't be private in the first place, or they only need to be embargoed for a short period of time. Any real evidence to support that rather strong claim? From our most recent huge thread, with 97 messages, 50 of them at least were trivially off topic; only about 15 of them contained any useful information discussing the actual content, and the rest were near-contentless +1/-1 messages. Two other threads of 30 and 41 mesages didn't belong on -private in the first place. So out of ≈210 non VAC messages, at least 111 of them didn't belong on -private (and probably 50 of those didn't belong on any Debian mailing list except -curiosa.) IMO most threads on d-private get started there because the sender actually wants the subject to be private. The very first message may be private (or partially so), but the main part of the discussion usually isn't, and certainly the OT leaves of the discussion aren't. [In past four big threads we were 2/4 of starting messages being appropriate for -private...] But it seems to me that those are also often the least interesting, so what's the gain in declassifying them? Little, which is why no one has bothered to spend the time to do so. [The fact that I feel strongly about openness and still won't spend the time to devote to declassifying -private speaks for itself...] IMO the whole idea of partial declassification stinks anyway. Is it really desirable to declassify some messages in a thread but not others? Does that give the public a balanced view of a discussion? If people are concerned about having their views represented when the discussion is declassified, they shouldn't withhold them from declassification. It also seems to me that in any declassification scheme the risk of declassifying a message which its author did not intend to ever become public is very high. Frankly, if someone sends a message to -private which they think should remain private forever, and it's not obvious that it should remain so to the normal DD, it probably didn't need to be read by a thousand DDs in the first place. Just consider that an objection also extends to any replies that quote (part) of it. Obviously. I think it's safer to err on the conservative side and simply respect the privacy of the list unconditionally. That option was further discussion, and lost... Don Armstrong 1: It's mootness certainly doesn't change my opinion that we made a mistake. [Hell, I seconded the current process, so *I* made a mistake too.] -- LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100625235121.gu31...@rzlab.ucr.edu
