Re: Realizing Good Ideas with Debian Money
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 09:24:59AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Philip Hands dijo [Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 10:51:10AM +0200]: > > It occurs to me that we could establish some sort of hardship fund to > > make sure that someone who's current situation falls below some minimum > > that we could define, they would be able to apply for funding. > > > > For example, I recently bought some refurbished Lenovo X230 laptops for > > GBP 85.00 each, mostly because that seemed cheap enough that I'd be > > annoyed if my own X230 breaks and I'd not taken advantage of that deal. > > Also, my daughters clearly need laptops. > > > > If there's any DD/DM who's current hardware is more ancient than that, > > then if they'd like to upgrade, but cannot afford to, it seems to me > > that for a small outlay from Debian they might well be enabled to be > > much more productive. > > That's something I would clearly agree to. And it's a very different > issue from paying to perform a given task - It's reaching out and > helping those that can better contribute with the project. Besides, in > the example you present, they would be quite smaller expenses for the > project than what I would expect for a finish-a-hard-task gig. In general this is a reasonable approach, but it might turn out to be hard to define what is actually needed and by whom. > > We've also occasionally had people who've been part of the project fall > > on hard times, and I think that having the ability to quickly provide > > benevolent funding to someone who's e.g. been rendered homeless somehow, > > would also be something that we should try to make possible. > > > > Obviously, this might well bump into rules about what non-profit > > organisations can do, so the details would need to be carefully worked > > out. > > This could also work, provided it's done on an equitative basis and > not based on current/recent performance - having it as a > kind-of-safety-net. With some care so that's not a mechanism that can > be abused. And, yes, making sure it's a legal way to spend our money > (but I don't see why wouldn't it). IMHO this would be a very bad idea. There are many DDs in the US, a country that has a combination of very high healthcare costs and not universal healthcare coverage. What if a DD needs a life-saving procedure that costs a 6 digit amount not covered by any insurance? What if the child of a DD needs a life-saving procedure that costs a 6 digit amount not covered by any insurance? Or what if a DD lives in a country where a military conflict starts? E.g. the situation in Venezuela could quickly detoriate to something several orders of magnitude worse than being homeless in a first world country. Debian cannot be a safety net for everything that might go wrong in real life (but individual members of Debian might be willing to help). And legally it would likely also be problematic to spend money on healthcare bills or flying a family out of a country. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
[respond by Jun 20]: Call for Feedback on the Antiharassment team
Dear Debian: I'm seeking feedback on your interactions with the antiharassment team. Ultimately I'd like to learn how well they are meeting the needs of the project in helping to keep our community welcoming and safe. As discussed in my bits from the DPL, A group of us is meeting in late June and I'd appreciate comments by June 20. Comments received between June 20 and the start of Debconf in mid July will still be useful, but not as valuable as comments received by June 20. I'd appreciate it if people would help spread the word and let people know about this request for feedback. Your specific comments will be kept confidential (although if you mail lea...@debian.org as requested, future DPLs will be able to read your comments.; hartm...@debian.org goes only to me) However I will summarize and consolidate feedback and share both with the antiharassment team and potentially with a broader audience like debian-private or debian-project. I'm interested both in feedback from people who approached the antiharassment team and in feedback from people approached by the antiharassment team or its members. Please let me know generally when the contact happened, because the team and its procedures have changed over the years. I'd like to hear what went well. What went poorly. Were you a reporter, respondent or both? Did the turn around time and frequency of contact meet your needs? Did you feel respected during the process? Did you feel that your input was considered? Were issues resolved to your satisfaction? Did you feel that your interaction with the team helped keep Debian welcoming and respectful? If so, what contributed to that? If not, what could have been done better? Thanks for your consideration and any input you'd like to share. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: permissions
Hi
I have a problem regarding why debian live installers wont work on a
specific machine the processor is intel i3 7th generation
who should I address the question to/ and to be able to run debian what
specifications should I look into in choosing a machine
thank you
semih ozlem
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:52 PM Roberto C. Sánchez
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:34:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sánchez writes ("Re: permissions"):
> > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:40:49PM +0200, nourdebian2...@tutanota.com
> wrote:
> > > >Hi
> > > >We thank you very much for your efforts and great achievements.
> > > >I have a problem I want to solve.
> > > >I have created another group and want to prevent it from
> connecting to the
> > > >whole machine except for one program either through the firewall
> or
> > > >through the permissions.
> > > >
> > > >I tried using chmod and removed the execute from the others but
> the result
> > > >was as if I removed the execution from the user who is me.
> > > >What is the solution ?
> > > >Is there a firewall solution at the software level? what is it ?
> > > >Is there a solution using permissions?
> > > >Thank you
> > >
> > > To do what you describe requires a mandatory access control system
> > > (SELinux and AppArmor are two popular choices).
> >
> > I don't think this is correct. For traffic originating with local
> > processes, iptables rules can select on uid and gid.
>
> I interpreted "connecting to the whole machine" as including users
> logged in locally.
>
> > But this
> > question belongs on -user.
> >
>
> It certainly does. My apologies for not redirecting appropriately. It
> seems that I have -user and -project mail going into the same folder and
> I failed to take note of it previously.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>
> --
> Roberto C. Sánchez
>
>
Re: permissions
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 02:34:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez writes ("Re: permissions"):
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:40:49PM +0200, nourdebian2...@tutanota.com wrote:
> > >Hi
> > >We thank you very much for your efforts and great achievements.
> > >I have a problem I want to solve.
> > >I have created another group and want to prevent it from connecting to
> > > the
> > >whole machine except for one program either through the firewall or
> > >through the permissions.
> > >
> > >I tried using chmod and removed the execute from the others but the
> > > result
> > >was as if I removed the execution from the user who is me.
> > >What is the solution ?
> > >Is there a firewall solution at the software level? what is it ?
> > >Is there a solution using permissions?
> > >Thank you
> >
> > To do what you describe requires a mandatory access control system
> > (SELinux and AppArmor are two popular choices).
>
> I don't think this is correct. For traffic originating with local
> processes, iptables rules can select on uid and gid.
I interpreted "connecting to the whole machine" as including users
logged in locally.
> But this
> question belongs on -user.
>
It certainly does. My apologies for not redirecting appropriately. It
seems that I have -user and -project mail going into the same folder and
I failed to take note of it previously.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: permissions
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 01:40:49PM +0200, nourdebian2...@tutanota.com wrote: >Hi >We thank you very much for your efforts and great achievements. >I have a problem I want to solve. >I have created another group and want to prevent it from connecting to the >whole machine except for one program either through the firewall or >through the permissions. > >I tried using chmod and removed the execute from the others but the result >was as if I removed the execution from the user who is me. >What is the solution ? >Is there a firewall solution at the software level? what is it ? >Is there a solution using permissions? >Thank you To do what you describe requires a mandatory access control system (SELinux and AppArmor are two popular choices). Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
permissions
Hi We thank you very much for your efforts and great achievements. I have a problem I want to solve. I have created another group and want to prevent it from connecting to the whole machine except for one program either through the firewall or through the permissions. I tried using chmod and removed the execute from the others but the result was as if I removed the execution from the user who is me. What is the solution ? Is there a firewall solution at the software level? what is it ? Is there a solution using permissions? Thank you
