Re: Debian companies group
On 05/09/13 at 10:48 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I suggest one reason may be a lack of interest by the project and that consultants have moved to discussing debian in other places than the project lists, such as social media. There could probably be uses for -consultants if project leaders showed a fraction of the interest they have in -companies. -consultants has 400 members, which seems a much better starting point for development than a list of 4 members. It feels a bit like the project is lusting after companies who aren't interested in that way, rather than treating the lovers it knows well. Hi, First, I think that it's extremely important that Debian encourages the existence of a network of business entities able to provide support or specific developments around Debian. That's the role of the community around debian-consultants@ IMHO. But there are other ways for business entities to help Debian. I can think of at least two: - long term support. It is well known that our next release+1y support duration is too short for many use cases. We do not seem to be able to find volunteers to work on improving on that. - hardware test kit. I remember discussions at DebConf 8 where Bdale explained that labelling servers Debian ready is something that companies such as HP would like to do, but currently can't due to the lack of software and testing procedure for that. (My memory might not be totally accurate on that, but I think that was the idea.) Despite existing since 1997, -consultants@ failed to make progress on those two points. Instead of throwing so much negative energy at -companies@, I really think that we should encourage this initiative. If it fails, too bad, but at least we will have tried. Regarding the secrecy requirement, I can totally see how sketching a business model involving several business entities on one of the two examples above could require some secrecy. I prefer to see it happening on a Debian-provided list where the only criteria is related to the size of companies, rather than in private discussions between a self-selected set of companies. Also, in order to be endorsed by Debian as something official (e.g. Debian hardware test kit rather than Hardware test kit for Debian from FoobarInc.), the results of this initiative should be designed in an open way, so I expect that the discussions happen on other Debian lists as soon as reasonably possible. Finally, leader@ is subscribed to -companies@, and I will make sure that the -companies@ group reports to the project when it's reasonable to do so. Lucas -- 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/20130906070722.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 09:07:22AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: But there are other ways for business entities to help Debian. I can think of at least two: Just off the top of my head, two more: - OEM work to have Debian pre-installed on machines available on the market - certification lobbying: back when I was DPL I've spoken a number of times with companies interested in proposing Debian to their customers, but unable to do so because Debian is not $foo certified Both kind of activities are not particularly suitable for volunteers, because they're definitely not fun / exciting tasks to spend your volunteer time on. On the other hand, they are activities that, if pursued, would benefit the Debian ecosystem, and around which companies can expect to find sustainable business models. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian companies group
how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving back to the developer and user community? It amazes me how much time we spend discussing he secret nature of the list although it was more than once said that this is not necessarily meant to stay that way. To answer your question, some topics simply cannot be put into the open, but I can easily see these restrictive companies becoming more open once they see where this is headed. so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict policies against sharing information, to seek help from other companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members). Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any answer. regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? Do you want to tell us that said three-letter agency has access to private Debian information? Or that we shouldnÄt care about privacy because they get everything anyway? does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy here? In a way it does, after all nothing is withheld from the project. Keep in mind that the DPL is subscribed, too. Taking about the DPL, why is nobody complaining that lea...@debian.org is not public? Relax, I'm just kidding. i sincerely hope that other non-public aspects receive all due scrutiny as well. don't you? You might want to search for those in the publicly available archives. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- 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/20130906122940.gd25...@feivel.credativ.lan
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, david...@ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? i meant to provide an analogy, by substituting a more conventional institution for the debian project, so that you might be less astonished at encountering criticism here. furthermore,... On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes continued (though i snipped it in my reply, failing to understand its relevance): Do you want to tell us that said three-letter agency has access to private Debian information? no. i would not know, and i meant to imply nothing of the kind. the analogy must have been far less clear than i imagined. to elaborate: the analogy substitutes not only google for debian, but also google's characteristic tendency to share information with TLAs for debian's characteristic tendency to share information with the public at large. -wes -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1309061228370.22...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
Re: Debian companies group
On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Michael Meskes wrote: how do you envision a company with such restrictive policies giving back to the developer and user community? It amazes me how much time we spend discussing he secret nature of the list although it was more than once said that this is not necessarily meant to stay that way. i would question the likelihood that discussions which begin in privileged secrecy, and which include parties accustomed to that privilege, will shed that same privilege by general consensus. perhaps others have had experience quite different from mine, which leads them to expect otherwise. but, needless to say, i know only my own. To answer your question, some topics simply cannot be put into the open, but I can easily see these restrictive companies becoming more open once they see where this is headed. duly noted. you seem more optimistic about this than i am. so the list would be a safe forum for companies with strict policies against sharing information, to seek help from other companies (with all privy parties being companies of some minimum size, and employing some minimum number of debian project members). Nice spin you put on the statement, although not backed my email. If this is how you prefer to discuss, don't be surprised to not see any answer. afaict, i merely compiled several statements of yours into one, without changing the meaning. and i did so in the interest of clarity, not obfuscation. even if i wanted to mislead, i believe it would be foolish to try in public view. but it seems i have offended you, which is something i have been trying not to do. i have read over the sentence several times, and i must confess i still cannot see the spin in it. could it be located somewhere else? either way, i am truly sorry to have caused you to doubt my sincerity. regarding such special needs, i can think of a few projects that could use hosting that provides a degree of confidentiality not provided by the google-way. do you suppose that google could make an exception for them? maybe forgo a little data-mining, deny access to three-letter agencies, etc? As a matter of fact I do expect my private discussion remain private forever. That they don't may or may not be Google's fault. But where's your point? i meant to provide an analogy, by substituting a more conventional institution for the debian project, so that you might be less astonished at encountering criticism here. does it puzzle you more, to encounter some resistance to secrecy here? In a way it does, after all nothing is withheld from the project. Keep in mind that the DPL is subscribed, too. are you saying that the project is informed because some members are sure to be subscribed? i do not think that informs the project. unless and until the list-internal consensus opens the list, i take it that such members will be expected *not* to inform the project at large. if it seems to you like i am splitting hairs, here, i think we have located an interesting point of contention. because that is precisely how your claim to the contrary strikes me (assuming i have understood it correctly). Taking about the DPL, why is nobody complaining that lea...@debian.org is not public? Relax, I'm just kidding. i sincerely hope that other non-public aspects receive all due scrutiny as well. don't you? You might want to search for those in the publicly available archives. is this two jokes in a row? or just a joke-and-a-half? ;) best wishes, wes -- 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/alpine.deb.2.00.1309060950400.22...@brutus.ling.ohio-state.edu
