Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Thomas Goirand]

On 2/20/20 8:50 AM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 2/20/20 8:30 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> For the record; I have _absolutely no doubt_ that Sam is working to benefit 
>> Debian.  But in that particular instance, I happen to strongly disagree that 
>> his actions have a positive effect on Debian (the community).
> 
> +1

+1 as well.

It feels like the DPL is kind of blackmailing the Montreal team...
Hopefully, that's not the intent, they will receive financial help by
the project, and they will not have to self-humiliate publicly.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Thomas Goirand]

Hi Roberto,

Regardless of whatever could be my political views (which I'm trying to
set aside), there's issues with your reasoning below:

On 2/20/20 2:20 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Another and clearly better and more inclusive approach would be to not
> "penalize" people for the government under which they happen to live.

Doing a debconf in a country with such a controversy isn't penalizing
just the few DDs living there, but the whole project. The number of
people that decided not to go is self-explanatory.

Not doing a debconf doesn't penalize anyone, it just happens elsewhere
and the people you're talking about can still attend...

Also, accepting a Debconf in Israel has nothing to do with being
inclusive. It's the opposite way. These people who you're asking for
being more inclusive are in fact not attending because they would like
the hosting state to be more "inclusive" itself (ie: with the
Palestinians). So your request for being more "inclusive" will obviously
fail here.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ansgar]

micah anderson writes:
> Ansgar  writes:
>>> The crux of my strong disagreement is here: as DPL, you just _framed_ the 
>>> Montreal miniDebConf as a protest.
>>
>> I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
>> being organized specifically to support the BDS movement
>
> You might think that but I think you should think again, or maybe read
> again, that is just plain false.

Dunno, if the organizers also invite talks from the "Palestinian
Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel"[1] it seems
more and more so.

  [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debconf-team/public/mini/mtl2020/issues/24

> If you wish to debate this, then I think doing so somewhere other than
> this mailing list would be prudent.

Yes, maybe we should just have a GR whether Debian should welcome BDS at
Debian or not.

Ansgar

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[micah anderson]

Ansgar  writes:

>>
>> The crux of my strong disagreement is here: as DPL, you just _framed_ the 
>> Montreal miniDebConf as a protest.
>
> I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
> being organized specifically to support the BDS movement

You might think that but I think you should think again, or maybe read
again, that is just plain false.

> a movement
> that is uncontroversially seen as antisemitic.

[snip]

> And before people complain too much about BDS being antisemitic being
> controversial:

[snip]

> And because we are talking about Canada and Toronto: Wikipedia says that
> Ontario in 2016 passed a motion condemning BDS as well, because "The
> motion was necessary because of growing concern on Ontario’s university
> campuses where members of BDS movements have harassed and targeted
> Jewish students under the guise of free speech"[3]. The two largest
> parties supporting the motion held 82 of 107 seats at the time. So
> again pretty uncontroversial.

[snip]

>   [3]: 
> https://torontosun.com/2016/12/01/ontario-mpps-reject-bds-movement/wcm/12c5c198-aa3a-459d-b34b-2c1d47c1475a

Amusingly, the article you are using to support your claim that it is
'uncontroversial' must not have been read by you, as it starts by
specifically saying it was a "controversial vote".

   Ontario’s legislature rejected the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS)
   movement in a controversial vote Thursday, with some MPPs saying it
   promotes hatred against Israel.

To speak to the specific resolution that you are talking about
here... it was *not* to say that BDS is antisemtic. The only thing
related to BDS with regards to that resolution was to reject the
"differential treatment of Israel" by the BDS movement. Differential
treatment is hardly "antisemtic".

In fact, in 2017 an EKOS survey showed that four in five Canadians (80%)
believe the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS)
on Israel is *reasonable*. That seems to suggest that it is just a tiny
bit more controversial than 'uncontroversial'.

Nevertheless, I completely agree with you: if you omit things that don't
support your position, then yes it does look very uncontroversial
indeed! Amazing how that works.

Are there *allegations* that BDS is anti-Semitic? Sure there are. Are
those allegations uncontroversial?  Hardly.

What I believe is uncontroversial is when you assert something that is
obviously not true on its face, it undermines any argument you might be
trying to get through.

Lets be clear, calling criticisms of Israel anti-Semitic detracts from
arguments against true anti-Semitism.

Making the claim that BDS is against all Jewish people because it
doesn't agree with everything that the state of Israel does is presuming
that all Jewish people share the same political commitments while
ignoring the reality that there are quite a few Jews who are extremely
critical of the state. This isn't hard to verify.

If you wish to debate this, then I think doing so somewhere other than
this mailing list would be prudent.

-- 
micah

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Tiago Bortoletto Vaz]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:37:23AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ansgar  writes:
> 
> > If you have 80-90%+ of parliament, from pretty much all parties, agree
> > on something, then it *is* pretty much as uncontroversional as it gets
> > there.
> 
> This is an entertaining example to use in a project whose mission is free
> software.  I'm pretty sure that by that standard it's entirely
> uncontroversial that Windows is the best operating system, that software
> copyright has no social downsides, that software patents are a good thing,
> and that proprietary software companies are a vital backbone of the
> economy.
> 
> I can assure you, as a US citizen, that the idea that BDS is inherently
> antisemitic is very controversial in the US.  Your beliefs about the
> political consensus in my country are uninformed.  Political consensus in
> the US is not well-represented by voting ratios in Congress, particularly
> in the absence of a lot of complex context.
> 
> I will not try to tell you what the consensus is in Germany since I'm
> obviously not qualified to do so.

The irony here is that he finds himself qualified to say that it's
uncontroversial in Canada, and then he cites a source that starts like this:
"Ontario’s legislature rejected the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS)
movement in a controversial vote..."

This thread is so much wrong.

Peace,

--
Tiago

Re: -EXT-Re: DFARS Compliance Question

[Ximin Luo]

It's most likely fine. Tor Project has to abide by DFARS (and I too when I was 
a Tor contractor) due to its DARPA funding and we all used Debian.

DFARS is literally 600+ pages of regulations, not really feasible for a small 
org to crawl over in detail.

X

Kunowski, Betty:
> WARNING:  This message is from an external source.  Evaluate the message 
> carefully BEFORE clicking on links or opening attachments.
> 
> Thank you I have already sent them a separate email asking this question and 
> am waiting for a response.
> 
> Betty Kunowski
> IT Asset Specialist - Software
> ITS Planning & Operations
> Ph. 858.525.6599 / Internal Ext. 802-6599
> -
> 
> "Together we will realize our Vision if we live our Mission and Values"
> 
> GA's Software Policy: https://in.ga.com/PEC/policy/CP-1305.pdf
> 
> Have you checked your Software Center lately?? Many applications are 
> available there for self-installation.
> For faster response on IT issues, please contact the ITS Service Desk at Ext: 
> 4000 in GA or Ext: 3550 in ASI or email itshelpd...@ga.com
> This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. 
> Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), 
> you may not use, copy, print or disclose to anyone this message or any 
> information contained in this message. If you have received this e-mail in 
> error, please advise the sender by reply and delete the message. Thank you
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Moritz Muehlenhoff 
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:42 AM
> To: Kunowski, Betty 
> Cc: secur...@debian.org
> Subject: -EXT-Re: DFARS Compliance Question
> 
> WARNING:  This message is from an external source.  Evaluate the message 
> carefully BEFORE clicking on links or opening attachments.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 06:06:46PM +, Kunowski, Betty wrote:
>> Hello.
>> I have a group of users that have a need to put Debian Linux on some 
>> internal General Atomics computers for an apprenticeship program we are 
>> running with a local community college.
>> I would like to know if it is DFARS compliant as we are a defense contractor 
>> and I could not find that answer within your FAQs.
>> Please let me know.
>> Thank you.
> 
> I have no idea, but probably others know this better: Please send an email to 
> debian-project@lists.debian.org
> 
> Cheers,
> Moritz
> 


-- 
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git

Re: RE: -EXT-Re: DFARS Compliance Question

[Harlan Lieberman-Berg]

Hi Betty,

For the record, though I am a Debian Developer, I am replying to this email
in my capacity as a Federal employee.  Nothing in this e-mail shall be
considered authorization for vendors to incur cost or perform work outside
of the scope of their contract. If there is a question as to whether any
statement in this e-mail will result in the aforementioned, it is the
vendor's responsibility to obtain direction or authorization from a
certified Contracting Officer.

The Debian Project is not a cloud services organization, nor does it
provide software under contract.  In fact, the Debian Project itself
doesn't even exist as a legal entity that could be bound to a contract.  If
you're referring to DFARS 252.204–7012, for example, that doesn't really
make sense.

The best way to think about it is that Debian is a collection of software
that's freely available to the general public to be used however they see
fit.  It comes with no warranty of fitness for any purpose, one way or the
other.  I recommend reading OMB Circular M-16-12 and the DoD CIO memo
http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/FOSS/2009OSS.pdf for more
information.

Sincerely,

-- 
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Defense Digital Service

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Russ Allbery]

Ansgar  writes:

> If you have 80-90%+ of parliament, from pretty much all parties, agree
> on something, then it *is* pretty much as uncontroversional as it gets
> there.

This is an entertaining example to use in a project whose mission is free
software.  I'm pretty sure that by that standard it's entirely
uncontroversial that Windows is the best operating system, that software
copyright has no social downsides, that software patents are a good thing,
and that proprietary software companies are a vital backbone of the
economy.

I can assure you, as a US citizen, that the idea that BDS is inherently
antisemitic is very controversial in the US.  Your beliefs about the
political consensus in my country are uninformed.  Political consensus in
the US is not well-represented by voting ratios in Congress, particularly
in the absence of a lot of complex context.

I will not try to tell you what the consensus is in Germany since I'm
obviously not qualified to do so.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

RE: -EXT-Re: DFARS Compliance Question

[Kunowski, Betty]

WARNING:  This message is from an external source.  Evaluate the message 
carefully BEFORE clicking on links or opening attachments.

Thank you I have already sent them a separate email asking this question and am 
waiting for a response.

Betty Kunowski
IT Asset Specialist - Software
ITS Planning & Operations
Ph. 858.525.6599 / Internal Ext. 802-6599
-

"Together we will realize our Vision if we live our Mission and Values"

GA's Software Policy: https://in.ga.com/PEC/policy/CP-1305.pdf

Have you checked your Software Center lately?? Many applications are available 
there for self-installation.
For faster response on IT issues, please contact the ITS Service Desk at Ext: 
4000 in GA or Ext: 3550 in ASI or email itshelpd...@ga.com
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. 
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you 
may not use, copy, print or disclose to anyone this message or any information 
contained in this message. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
advise the sender by reply and delete the message. Thank you


-Original Message-
From: Moritz Muehlenhoff 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:42 AM
To: Kunowski, Betty 
Cc: secur...@debian.org
Subject: -EXT-Re: DFARS Compliance Question

WARNING:  This message is from an external source.  Evaluate the message 
carefully BEFORE clicking on links or opening attachments.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 06:06:46PM +, Kunowski, Betty wrote:
> Hello.
> I have a group of users that have a need to put Debian Linux on some internal 
> General Atomics computers for an apprenticeship program we are running with a 
> local community college.
> I would like to know if it is DFARS compliant as we are a defense contractor 
> and I could not find that answer within your FAQs.
> Please let me know.
> Thank you.

I have no idea, but probably others know this better: Please send an email to 
debian-project@lists.debian.org

Cheers,
Moritz

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Sam

On 2020/02/20 15:44, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I really hope that supporting our people doing the work at DC20 is
> uncontroversial.

During DC19 I've spoken about this topic to dozens (as in, literally
dozens) of people who have approached me who care about DebConf and who
have contributed to it over the years. I can assure you that not a
single person has stated anything vaguely against the DC20 team or
against their work, in fact over and over people make it clear that they
like the DC20 and have stated words of support for them, even in the
cases where they don't support aspects of their government.

I can tell you with a great degree of confidence that support for the
DC20 team is entirely uncontroversial and it's really not worth spending
any time worrying about that specific aspect whatsoever.

-Jonathan

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ansgar]

On Thu, 2020-02-20 at 17:11 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> But my main point is this: Ansgar asserted that it is uncontroversial
> that the BDS movement is antisemitic.  Obviously that was not true.

As I wrote it's only as uncontroversional as, say, climate change or
usefulness of vaccines is.  Of course you will always find someone 
disagreeing if you look hard enough.

If you have 80-90%+ of parliament, from pretty much all parties, agree
on something, then it *is* pretty much as uncontroversional as it gets
there.

> If it were true then the Montreal team's message would be a CoC
> problem.

Well, it sadly is. Note that BDS in total being antisemitic doesn't
imply all individuals supporting it are so.

Ansgar

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ian Jackson]

Felix Lechner writes ("Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight 
Israel not the DC20 Team"):
> Hi Ian,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:50 AM Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
> >
> > The BDS movement is not antisemitic.
> 
> Please have a look at this report, especially the final page.
> http://bit.ly/TheNewAnti-SemitesReport

I started to look at this but it is seems to be based primarily on the
conflation of Israel with Jews.  (See my discussion headed "double
standards" in my article below.)

Also it relies on the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which I reject.
I wrote a lengthy analysis of it in uk.legal.moderated when the UK
Labour party were being criticised for not adopting it.

But my main point is this: Ansgar asserted that it is uncontroversial
that the BDS movement is antisemitic.  Obviously that was not true.
If it were true then the Montreal team's message would be a CoC
problem.

Ian.

Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Message-ID: 
References: <2h1jmdpd669ubv0er3akcks8k0inpj5...@4ax.com> 
 
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiark.greenend.org.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:27:56 + (UTC)
From: ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Re: Labour - anti-semitism
Date: 13 Aug 2018 14:27:52 +0100 (BST)

In article ,
The Todal   wrote:
>This ought to be a good forum in which to debate the wording. It's what 
>lawyers do, debate wordings.
>
>The original IHRA definition and examples:
>https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
>
>The Labour Party NEC antisemitism policy:
>https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/app/uploads/2018/07/ASdoc3.pdf

Thanks for this prompt.  I haven't read the rest of the thread.

I'm starting by reading the Labour document.


I'm slightly concerned by the reference in para 7 to the ECHR freedom
of expression principles.  There is much conduct that a political
party might want to prohibit in its members, which the mandatory and
universal force of the public law ought to tolerate.

Relatedly (perhaps, conversely) I'm concerned by its narrow focus on
tone.  As a part of the Left, the Labour party should be alert to the
difficulties of policing the tone used by the oppressed.  (IMO This
applies here both to the tone used by Israel's critics to criticise
Israel, and the tone used by Jews and their allies to criticise
antisemitism.)

However, perhaps that doesn't matter because in the examples in para
9, they do give many examples of antisemitism that relate to substance
rather than tone.

Paragraphs 10-15 are impressive.


Paragraph 16 rather fudges the question of comparing Isreal to the
Nazis.  This is a very contentious issue.  Having spoken to many of my
friends about this, the majority feeling seems to be that such
comparisons are inherently antisemitic and must be avoided.

I think this is going too far.  Nazi comparisons are a staple way of
characterising things as evil, in our culture.  (Hence Godwin's law,
now suspended by Godwin of course.)  I think it's unfair and
unreasonable to insist that Israel should get an immunity from many of
the most effective shorthand criticisms of some of its actions.


Now I turn to the IHRA document.  It's not clear to me what portion of
the IHRA web page you link to was agreed by the Plenary.  The list of
examples is not in the quote box.  The Labour document says of the
text on the IHRA web page:
 | The publication of the IHRA definition was accompanied by a
 | series of examples to guide IHRA in its intergovernmental work.

So is the web page even authoritative as a formally and firmly agreed
statement of the opinion of the IHRA ?  I doubt it.  That suggests to
me that it's being asked by critics of Labour to bear rather too much
weight.

But supposing it is authoritative, or at least relevantly interesting,
let us compare it to the Labour party document.


There is a lot in the Labour document that is not in the IHRA page.

In particular paragraph 10 of the Labour document makes a very
important point which captures a lot of -ist behaviour.  Paragraph 15
identifies and prohibits the `zio-' prefix, and generally prohibits
using Zionist to mean Jew.  Paragraph 14 deals with antisemitistic
requirements that Jews condemn Israel, more than anyone else should.
These are important additions which I expect anti-antisemitists will
applaud.

Paragraphs 7, 8, 11-13 and the rest of 14 and 15, provide a much
fuller discussion of the context, and will be much more helpful with
the difficulties that someone may face if they are trying to make a
judgement about someone's words or conduct.


The real dispute is surely about simply the lists of examples.

The IHRA definition doesn't number them but I will call them
(1)-(11).  That allows me to conveniently also refer to the Labour
document's examples (a)-(g) and its paragraphs as 1-16.

(1)-(5) = (a)-(e).

(6) ("loyal") is the last paragraph of 14.  I can see why the authors
of the Labour document chose to move it there.  That makes the Labour
document 

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Gunnar Wolf]

Ian Jackson dijo [Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:50:26AM +]:
> Ansgar writes ("Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel 
> not the DC20 Team"):
> > I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
> > being organized specifically to support the BDS movement, a movement
> > that is uncontroversially seen as antisemitic.  They could have chosen
> > not to frame the announcement this way, but they did not.
> 
> The BDS movement is not antisemitic.

*sigh*

I would love to invoke Godwin here. But, after coming back to the
issue (no, I do not think this content shouis relevant to
debian-project... And yes, I started writing this mail twice and
decided not to send it... But it still itches quite wrong... And I
have to reply, sorry)...

BDS is not antisemitic, but stirs antisemitism. Not by design. Not
because it is meant to. But as an unescapable side consequence.

Many among us (us == people with Jewish origins) have felt it. Many
people recognize Israel to be not-exactly-the-same-as-Jewish. But many
people don't. And I have seen BDS being (wrongly) applied to
businesses run by non-Israeli Jews in countries other than Israel.

Many Jews throughout the world and many Israelis stand firmly against
the many injustices the Israeli government carries out. But many
people does not understand the great distance between one thing and
the other — Why should they? Really, defining our nationality is a
difficult and thorny topic. It took me at least 25 years to come to
terms with who I am and not take strong distance against parts of it
(and I don't participate in any religious nor communitary aspects of
judaism in my country).

I won't chase my own tail anymore in this post. Let me just repeat
something that's as incontrovertible as can be, given that I have felt
it.

BDS is not antisemitic, but stirs antisemitism.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Jack Warkentin]

Hello Debian Community

Criticism of the BJP government of India is not considered to be anti Hindu.

Criticism of Myanmar because of their treatment of the Rohingyas is not 
considered to be anti Buddhist.


Criticism of Saudi Arabia because of their treatment of women is not 
considered to be anti Muslim.


Criticism of the government of China is not considered to be anti 
Confucianism, anti Taoism, ...  .


So why is criticism of the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis 
considered to antisemitism?


A BDS movement brought down the apartheid government of South Africa. 
The Israelis and their supporters are fearful that a similar BDS 
movement will bring down the state of Israel *as it currently exists*. 
Hence the desperate attempts by the Zionists to conflate criticism of 
Israel with antisemitism, the screed promoted by Felix being a case in 
point.


I would suggest that those of the Debian Community who are still 
following this *inappropriate thread* have a look at


https://www.ijvcanada.org/open-letter-from-canadian-academics-opposing-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/

As I said, this thread is inappropriate on this list. But it is hard not 
to answer accusations of antisemitism by those fearful of the effects of 
the BDS movement. And before I am accused of antisemitism I will simply 
state that ever since I was in high school I have had good Jewish 
friends. None of them has ever had cause to believe that I am antisemitic.


Regards

Jack

Ansgar wrote:


I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
being organized specifically to support the BDS movement, a movement
that is uncontroversially seen as antisemitic.  They could have chosen
not to frame the announcement this way, but they did not.


And Felix Lechner wrote


Please have a look at this report, especially the final page.

http://bit.ly/TheNewAnti-SemitesReport


Jack Warkentin, phone 902-404-0457, email jw...@bellaliant.net
39 Inverness Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3P 1X6

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana]

Hi,

Em 18/02/2020 15:31, Roberto C. Sánchez escreveu:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:



Right.  But choosing Brazil for a DebConf venue at a time when it did
not even have national-level anti-discrimination protection for LGBT
people[*] was done in good taste and was a victory for diversity?  Sure.


This is not true. What we had and still having is a homophobic president.

Best regards,

--
Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana (phls)
Curitiba - Brasil
Debian Developer
Diretor do Instituto para Conservação de Tecnologias Livres
Site: http://www.phls.com.br
GNU/Linux user: 228719  GPG ID: 0443C450

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:03:50PM +0100, Dato Simó wrote:
> > If we force you, it is inherently distancing.  If you do it on 
> > your own, it can be constructive.
> 
> This sentence is beyond the pale for a PL.

How so?  The project, including various of its apparatus will ask people
to self-censor in the interest of community harmony.  If the request
goes unheeded or the situation escalates then more forceful measures are
taken, including expulsion.  How is this different, perhaps apart from
the fact that Sam recognized that escalation would not help in any way
and clearly stated that there would be no escalation if the Montreal
event team decided to ignore his request?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Dato Simó]

> If we force you, it is inherently distancing.  If you do it on 
> your own, it can be constructive.

This sentence is beyond the pale for a PL.

-d

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Sam Hartman]

[This will be my last message on this thread.
I go away on vacation tomorrow.]


> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:


Didier> The crux of my strong disagreement is here: as DPL, you just
Didier> _framed_ the Montreal miniDebConf as a protest.

This is a case where perception is powerful too.
I perceived it as a protest.
Several others, including people involved in DC20 see it that way.

That in and of itself is a problem of perception.
Even that problem of perception is sufficient to negatively impact  the
people doing the work.
Even that problem of perception is worth solving.

I really hope that supporting our people doing the work at DC20 is
uncontroversial.
You and others think my particular proposed solution sucks.

Okay.
I gave enough flexibility that another solution can be chosen.
(I also gave enough flexibility that people can choose to do nothing.
I think that people who do perceive a problem here will hear nothing a
certain way, but I explicitly left that option.)

Personally, I don't think simply a statement would be enough.
I would hear actual effort spent to constructively make things better
louder than any words.
Whether that's in the form of isolating Debian as I proposed or taking
some positive constructive steps to help out the people working on DC20
explicitly to say  we support you, or something we haven't thought of
yet.

Even if I got it wrong, we could choose to spend all this energy
supporting each other rather than fighting.

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:49:59AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> We could have something like a "bid acceptability check", at the start of
> the process, to detect, discuss and formally decide on Elephants early
> on.
> One way to achieve that could be to poll regular DebConf attendees about
> the bid, to measure the proportion of those who would not attend such a
> conference. (Historically, we had issues with DC13 (because camp), DC10
> and DC14 (because US), and DC18 (because Brazil) at least -- I don't
> remember if there were discussions about DC11 and DC16 but there could
> have been.)
> 
Another and clearly better and more inclusive approach would be to not
"penalize" people for the government under which they happen to live.
Everyone who is involved in the Debian project is making an actual
effort to improve the world and it would be far more productive to give
other members of the Debian community the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to these matters.

The only thing that polling regular DebConf attendees on the suitability
of future venues is likely to do is bias the venue selection process
based on the preferences of the poll respondents.  That seems less
inclusive rather than more inclusive.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Felix Lechner]

Hi Ian,

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:50 AM Ian Jackson
 wrote:
>
> The BDS movement is not antisemitic.

Please have a look at this report, especially the final page.

http://bit.ly/TheNewAnti-SemitesReport

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ian Jackson]

Ansgar writes ("Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel 
not the DC20 Team"):
> I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
> being organized specifically to support the BDS movement, a movement
> that is uncontroversially seen as antisemitic.  They could have chosen
> not to frame the announcement this way, but they did not.

The BDS movement is not antisemitic.

Ian.

Re: Announcing miniDebConf Montreal 2020 -- August 6th to August 9th 2020

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:26:06PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > absolutly. I still dont think it was right to have this decission in 
> > private,
> > but at least announcing it earlier would have been better.
> > 
> > (I do think having the decission in private was neccessary because else the 
> > decission would not have been made that way. But I might be wrong on that.)
> As I said in some other mail... I was part of the deciding team
> several times. We have often had non-official side channels to discuss
> bits we see, even to do the casual wry comments to the close friends
> we interactede with in the process we would not make in the
> open. There has always been some level of private communication around
> the decision.

what's your point? there's always *some* private discussion everywhere.

that's totally ok, normal, unavoidable and doesn't do any harm.

but having the *decision* and the/a discussion leading to it, should *not* 
happen 
on private, non archived channels. IMNSHO.

> > even if they were not ready at the 2nd review meeting, I dont understand 
> > why you
> > dont have a 3rd review meeting and instead now think it's need to decide 
> > this 
> > in private again.
> > 
> > can you explain?
> 
> Because after the 2nd review, we asked all the teams to update some
> bits. They pushed forwards. Now the decision is nearly final (it burns
> my fingers and I'd love to announce it, I guess we will communicate it
> in this week). But we have to write it as a joint thing, taking care
> of several bits in the process.
> 
> There is no point anymore in having a round 3. It would just waste
> everybody's time.

you might call it wasting everybodys time. i'd call it a transparent decision.

(and of course there are non transparent decisions in Debian too, eg like how
the release team chooses the release names. but those are very different in 
scope and impact, and the general direction is also very clear: a toy story 
name.)


-- 
cheers,
Holger

---
   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
   PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

In Europe there are people prosecuted by courts because they saved other people
from drowning in the  Mediterranean Sea.  That is almost as absurd  as if there
were people being prosecuted because they save humans from drowning in the sea.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ansgar]

Michael Banck writes:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:02:53AM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
>> the BDS movement, a movement that is uncontroversially seen as
>> antisemitic.
>
> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

So you are a Sith?

But yes, some people also find climate change or usefulness of vaccines
(autism!) controversional.  I recommend reading the rest of my mail for
more context.

Ansgar

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:02:53AM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> the BDS movement, a movement that is uncontroversially seen as
> antisemitic.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team

[Ansgar]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes:
> Le mercredi, 19 février 2020, 16.17:00 h CET Sam Hartman a écrit :
>> Debian is Asked to Support a Protest of a Debian Activity
>> =
>> 
>> The Montreal organizers could have simply organized an alternative for
>> those who were not traveling to DC20 for whatever reason.
>> That's something Debian could support with no reservations.
>> 
>> By making the political statement in their announcement, they have
>> turned the conference into a protest.  It's being billed as an
>> alternative to DebConf for political reasons.
>> 
>> (…)
>> 
>> So in effect the Debian Project is being asked to support a protest of
>> its own activity.
>
> The crux of my strong disagreement is here: as DPL, you just _framed_ the 
> Montreal miniDebConf as a protest.

I think the announcement by the organizers framed the conference as
being organized specifically to support the BDS movement, a movement
that is uncontroversially seen as antisemitic.  They could have chosen
not to frame the announcement this way, but they did not.

So the announcement forced the question to be whether Debian should
officially support such a movement or not by providing resources to
events organized in support of BDS. And honestly if people want to drag
the project into supporting something like the BDS movement, maybe we
should rather have a GR about it (including the option to explicitly
*NOT* support it). Though arguably the diversity statement should pretty
much include rejecting antisemitism and thus BDS...

And before people complain too much about BDS being antisemitic being
controversial: a resolution passed by the German parliament includes
comparisons of BDS with 'Kauft nicht bei Juden!' calls that were popular
sometime last century[1]; the US has adopted [2].  These resolutions
were pretty uncontroversial and adopted with very wide support from
pretty much all parties: the resolution in Germany was supported by at
least CDU/CSU/SPD/Grüne/FDP, so ~80%+, Die Linke had a different
resolution which also included "Reject BDS movement" even in its title,
so 87%+ reject BDS); the US resolution got something like 398:17 votes.

And because we are talking about Canada and Toronto: Wikipedia says that
Ontario in 2016 passed a motion condemning BDS as well, because "The
motion was necessary because of growing concern on Ontario’s university
campuses where members of BDS movements have harassed and targeted
Jewish students under the guise of free speech"[3]. The two largest
parties supporting the motion held 82 of 107 seats at the time. So
again pretty uncontroversial.

Ansgar

  [1]: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/101/1910191.pdf
  [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/246/text
  [3]: 
https://torontosun.com/2016/12/01/ontario-mpps-reject-bds-movement/wcm/12c5c198-aa3a-459d-b34b-2c1d47c1475a