Re: Upcoming oldstable point release (11.10)
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:11:32PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > The next point release for "bullseye" (11.10) is scheduled for Saturday, > February 10th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates > will be frozen during the preceding weekend. The correct date for 11.10 is Saturday, 29th June 2024. Apologies for any confusion. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Upcoming oldstable point release (11.10)
Hi, The next point release for "bullseye" (11.10) is scheduled for Saturday, February 10th. Processing of new uploads into bullseye-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. This will be the penultimate release for this suite. The final point release is anticipated in approximately two months time, after which "bullseye" will adopted by the LTS team. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Upcoming stable point release (12.6)
Hi, The next point release for "bookworm" (the delayed 12.6 release) is scheduled for Saturday, 29th June 2024. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian 11.10 release date enquiry
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:03:58PM +, Devidas Shanbhag, Amrutha wrote: > Hi team, > > When can we expect Debian 11.10 release? An approximate date would be very > helpful for us in planning. Next point release dates are published at https://release.debian.org as they are arranged. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Upcoming stable point release (12.6)
Hi, The next point release for "bookworm" (12.6) is scheduled for Saturday, April 6th. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceeding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Upcoming stable (12.2) and oldstable (11.8) point releases
The next point releases for "bookworm" (12.2) and "bullseye" (11.8) will take place on Saturday, October 7th 2023. Processing of new uploads into the relevant queues will be frozen the preceding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Upcoming stable point release (12.1)
Hi, The first point release for "bookworm" (12.1) is scheduled for Saturday, July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Upcoming stable point release (12.1)
Hi, The first point release for "bookworm" (12.1) is scheduled for Saturday, July 22nd. Processing of new uploads into bookworm-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 ed25519/0x196418AAEB74C8A1: CA619D65A72A7BADFC96D280196418AAEB74C8A1
Re: coccia.debian.org maintenance (moving the VM from BM to UBC)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:18:24PM -0500, Steve Robbins wrote: > There seems to be a lot of such migrations. Is there a wholesale move to > UBC? Or away from Bytemark? I believe it's primarily because of DebianRT#7967: vdisk msa2k-2.0-2tr10 @ bytemark in a critical state - https://rt.debian.org/7967 > On October 7, 2019 3:52:47 a.m. CDT, Julien Cristau > wrote: > >Hi folks, > > > >We will move the coccia.d.o VM (aka api.ftp-master.d.o, > >mirror.ftp-master.d.o) from Bytemark to UBC soon. Expect a few hours of > >downtime while the data is being copied. > > > >ftp.eu.upload.debian.org should keep working, although it won't be in > >Europe for some time (hopefully just a few short weeks). > > > >Cheers, > >Julien > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Apology and DAM decisions
(Copy to -private for those not reading -project; Reply-To/MFT set) Hi, As Debian Account Managers we welcome Norbert's frank and honest appraisal of his actions not only around his blog but also during the systemd and Code of Conduct discussions in the past. We're sure that this mail will not have been easy for him to write. Norbert has committed to upholding Debian's values of open, constructive and tolerant debate, to being more conscious of his communication style, and to being more open to feedback from other people. We have therefore agreed to reinstate Norbert's Developer status with immediate effect[1] and to amend his removal to a warning only. The warning is effective for six months from 7th January 2019 and Norbert understands that any breach of the Code of Conduct during that period may result in his immediate removal. For the avoidance of doubt, it is our intention that Norbert should be able to vote in this year's DPL election. 1: practically speaking, at the next keyring update. It is expected before the end of March 2019 For the Debian Account Managers, Enrico, Joerg and Jonathan -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 02:34:00PM +, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > Hello! > > Karsten Merker: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote: > >> > >>>> 4. NM Committee review > >>>> -- > >>>> The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the > >>>> matter in > >>>> private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not > >>>> an > >>>> inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision. > >>> I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant > >>> by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further > >>> input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not > >>> allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those > >>> explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written > >>> appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any > >>> sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that > >>> would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me. > >> > >> As written, it is not an inquiry. But a check of the decision > >> that DAMs have made. NMC should not need to dig around for > >> long. And should not be forced by someone claiming "but if you > >> only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY see the > >> light". Nah. Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC > >> deciding on that. End. If one side can not present enough to > >> support their case, then their case fails, it shouldn't be up > >> to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them. > > > > That point would be perfectly valid if DAM would not be part of > > the NMC and would not take part in the discussions, so that the > > NMC members would only decide on the written statements from both > > sides. This isn't the case here, though. DAM is part of the > > NMC, takes part in the discussions and can (and probably will, > > because that's just natural in such a situation) provide further > > input from their viewpoint based on how the discussion proceeds, > > but that's (for obvious reasons) not the case for the appealer, > > It is written in the initial proposal that DAM is excluded from this > vote. Maybe they should also be excluded from discussion within the NMC > explicitly. Would that solve the issues you raised? It was always our intention that DAM does not have any part in or view of the NMC discussion or vote. We submit the review to them and we get back a result. End. I have the very highest regard for both Joerg's and Enrico's integrity. I hope that they would say likewise about me. We are trying hard to do the right thing and not the subvertible thing, so please have a little faith that we are not designing this appeals process purely so we can game it in our favour. > > > so this causes an asymmetry in the procedure. Denying the the > > Non-DAM NMC members the right to inquire about things intensifies > > this asymmetry. > > As said elsewhere, the sentence about inquiry needs clarification it seems. It is to focus the committee's attention onto the provided allegations and defence, and keep them from going off on a tangent. A review should not involve further evidence-gathering. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Call for experiences
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:40:24PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Call for experiences of Norbert Preining"):
> > Very regrettably, [...]
>
> Several people whose opinions I hold in high regard have told me that
> this was a seriously bad idea. On an official level, I received a
> complaint from listmaster.
>
> So, I'm sorry. I failed to anticipate how badly people would see
> this; no doubt it unhelpfully contributed to the toxic atmosphere.
>
> So, I withdraw my previous message. Please don't reply to it any
> further. Thanks also to those who took the time and energy to write
> to rebuke me.
Our mails evidently crossed; thank you too for responding positively
and with good grace.
--
Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org
Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw
4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Call for experiences of Norbert Preining
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:03:14PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Very regrettably, it may become necessary to produce a fuller list of > incidents, including responses, to justify the recent DAM decision. > > Please search your communications archives. If you have had an > adverse experience of any kind with Norbert Preining, in public or in > private, please email me. I'm very surprised that you would think this an appropriate thing to do and I would prefer it if you withdraw and apologise. Why? Because this undermines all the valuable discussion that has been had in recent weeks about ensuring robust accountability with as much fairness as possible to all parties. It is really no better than a €500 bounty, after all. You do not seem open to building an objective case if you solicit only information about "adverse experiences". -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 1/7/19 11:27 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > 5. NM-Committee vote > > > > After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC, > > NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret, 3-day-long > > vote, with the following options: > > [snip] > Would this vote be secret? Yes, as the proposal you quoted specifies. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > 1. Appealing DAM decisions > -- > Any person who had their Debian membership suspended or revoked by DAM may > appeal the decision. They must request the appeal within 30 days, stating > why they disagree with the decision in a mail to DAM. DAM will notify the > New Members Committee (NMC)[1][2] and Front Desk. > > The original action taken by DAMs remains in force during the appeal. To clarify following a query in private: the notification to the committee includes the rationale given by the Developer. DAM handling the various notifications is purely to reduce the admin burden on the appealer, not to keep secrets from the committee. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:26:11AM -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote: > I think there are many who are concerned about the process, not the CoC > itself. Here are the main concerns as I see them (at least from the few > who have come forward), and I believe these are the reasons that people > are worrying: So, responding to those points in turn (and bearing in mind that this is not an official statement of any kind): > 1. The process itself is not well documented (it's new, so expected) Process of what? It's true that the relationship between AH and DAM is new and we're finding how best to work together, but that's not really a process. > 2. The accused isn't allowed to address the claims against them That's a rather simplistic view. Cases reaching AH and DAM typically do so as a last resort after going through many iterations of feedback. > 3. The a-h team is acting as both prosecution and judge/jury (usually > separated to reduce confirmation bias) Except that they can't actually *do* anything above and beyond and ordinary DD. AH are not delegated and don't have any special powers; it's up to maintainers of services whether their recommendations are implemented. > 4. The proceedings are closed, so claims of unfairness aren't refuted If you have suggestions of how to open proceedings up without compromising the confidence expectations of any of the involved parties, we'd all be delighted to hear them. It's a hard problem, it always has been. > 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) The ultimate appeal is through a GR, but that's a pretty blunt tool. We have proposals in discussion internally already to make this better. > I believe that the a-h team gives people warnings and tries to help them > understand why what they are saying is unacceptable and how they might > have been able to express their opinion more appropriately before > starting this process, but again I have no evidence of this, and they > cannot provide it. What is it that leads you to believe it then? > IANADD, but the limited information available about the process and the > outcomes is difficult in a community that is typically as transparent as > possible, and I think it is reasonable for people to have concerns about a > closed process. Any information that can be provided about the process > would probably help with these concerns -- and it should be published > somewhere other than mailing list archives. > > This situation is especially difficult since the interpretation of the > CoC can be highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the > a-h team is interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on > the a-h team's interpretation of the CoC would help (examples of bad > behavior, examples of behavior that although someone might be offended, > is not forbidden)? > > In Norbert's case, I get the impression that the bar was raised for him > after his first offense, and he may have actually been removed from the > project for insubordination (ie. re-adding his blog to planet, which > although ill-advised, may have been an honest mistake as he removed the > offending post before doing so). However, I only have half of the story. If you have only one half of a story, it is dangerous to draw absolute conclusions from it. > Finally, due to 2 and 3, there is going to be a lot more bias (toward > guilt) in this process than in a typical legal proceeding (this is about > the process, not the a-h team; it is just the nature of searching for > evidence of a crime or breach of the CoC in this case -- it is the > reason we have a hopefully impartial judge hearing both sides in legal > proceedings). Other people have expressed far more cogently than I can how Debian, AH and DAM are very much not courts and these are not legal proceedings. Debian is a private members organisation and is governed primarily by its own foundation documents. > This is especially difficult since the interpretation of the CoC can be > highly subjective, and there is no real feedback on how the a-h team is > interpreting it. Maybe writing a more in-depth document on what the a-h > team expects and what kind of behavior is the most common or most > disruptive would help? All Debian teams are volunteer-staffed and overstretched. If you are able to make a contribution to this document in some way, I'm sure they would appreicate the help. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 11:26:01AM +, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Ben Hutchings writes: > > > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:26 -0700, Eldon Koyle wrote: > >> 5. There doesn't appear to be an appeals process (contact DAM?) > > [...] > > > > There is, since any decision by the DPL or a delegate can be overridden > > by General Resolution. > > This isn't really an appeals process in the usual sense, though - more a > Big Red Button. DAM might like to consider letting the DPL be a point of > review/appeal? Appeals to the DPL wouldn't be compatible with the current version of our constitution. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Re: On having and using a Code of Conduct
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:57:00PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > In my opinion, all kinds of decisions should be done > by a team that has the delegation to do them - DAM. Nobody else. The only delegated power available to DAM is to rule on who is a member of the project - nothing more, nothing less. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Upcoming oldstable point release (8.11)
Hi, The next and final point release for "jessie" (8.11) is scheduled for Saturday, June 23rd. Processing of new uploads into jessie-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. Following this point release, "jessie" will be end-of-life from the perspective of the Release Team. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Maintainers Keyring changes
On 2018-04-25 08:20, Geert Stappers wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:10:41PM +, Debian FTP Masters wrote: The following changes to the debian-maintainers keyring have just been activated: kact...@gnu.org Added key: 7214B3C8D5FF8F26E12593D52E20FEEE71FC7D81 abhij...@disroot.org Full name: Abhijith PA dbarysh...@gmail.com Full name: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov Added key: 8F88381DD5C873E4AE487DA5199BF1243632046A deb...@bjorndolk.com Full name: Bjorn Dolk Added key: C985A104860E5F2D2FD8E8C3F7D3FAD933286674 ef...@azylum.org Full name: Geoffroy Youri Berret Added key: 2255310AD1A248A07B597638065FE53932DC551D jriv...@openrobotics.org Full name: Jose Luis Rivero olek-...@wojnar.org Full name: Olek Wojnar Debian distribution maintenance software, on behalf of the Keyring maintainers Seven e-mail address added but only four keys added. What is the idea of only adding an e-mail address to a keyring? New UIDs on existing keys. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 SaaS == Saunas as a Service broonie, more like Sauna as additional Storage
Re: Naming A New Build
Hi, On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:32:59PM -0500, nem live wrote: > On Jan 6th we lost a very intelligent, and debian driven soul. > My best friend Travis, who made me use debian passed away. > Everything I know about Linux is because of him. > > Is it possible to get a future build/distro named after him? Codenames for Debian are chosen from the Toy Story films [1]. It's not clear if you mean this or a dedication. Dedications [2] are rare and chosen by the release manager of the day. They are typically to someone who was actively involved in the project and gave over and above what we'd consider average involvement. I'm sorry, but your friend's advocacy of the distribution doesn't seem to me to fall into this category. You could consider organising some events yourself in honour of your friend, perhaps a party for the next release [3] or a bug squashing party [4] if there are enough people interested locally. 1: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases#Codenames 2: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/doc/dedication/ 3: https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseParty 4: https://wiki.debian.org/BSP -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Upcoming stable point release (9.2)
Hi, The second point release for "stretch" (9.2) is scheduled for Saturday, October 7th. Processing of new uploads into stretch-proposed-updates will be frozen during the preceding weekend. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: don't save me from myself!
On 2017-07-17 20:43, Jesse Johnson wrote: God help me from people who want to protect me from myself. First you got rid of the ROOT login. Next you got rid of SUDO. Now SU doesn’t work. And now I am fully protected from myself. I can’t update my system. No at at all. Authenticate doesn’t work. I can’t download software, since I don’t have any means to authenticate. I can’t update su, which doesn’t work. The system doesn’t even come with sudo. This indicates a broken system, not a broken distribution. Please contact debian-u...@lists.debian.org for user support. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 SaaS == Saunas as a Service broonie, more like Sauna as additional Storage
Re: public stats about posts in -private
On 2016-07-18 18:21, Daniel Pocock wrote: There are some things on -private that could be summarized with statistics publicly, e.g. the reasons people give when they retire from the project (X% cited reason A, Y% cited reason B, ...) Is there any consensus on whether deriving anonymous statistics from debian-private is acceptable? Acceptable, perhaps, but almost certainly not worth anybody's actual time. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8->10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits
Re: Future release roadmap
On 2015-08-21 15:51, Vogel, Steve wrote: We are planning resources to support our products running on Debian and would like to know an approximate timeline (through Q1 of 2017) of releases. We understand stable version 8.1 was released in June. What guidance should we use to plan support for stable 8.2. and stable 8.3? In general how frequently do these releases come out? Many thanks for any planning guidance you can provide. Assuming that you are referring to stable point releases, as you imply, the rule of thumb is that we schedule at two-month intervals for stable (three months for oldstable). However, that depends on the calendars of a number of people across the world, so it is a rule of thumb only. 8.2 has overrun considerably. Coordination happens primarily on debian-rele...@lists.debian.org if you want to watch out for it, and when known the release dates are posted to https://release.debian.org. Releases are normally on a Saturday and you can expect the results to be on mirrors by at least the Sunday morning. Further queries are probably best directed to debian-release; m-f-t set. For the release team: -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits
Re: The proper place to announce GRs (was Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?))
On 2014-10-13 21:11, Miles Fidelman wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:30:43PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: Whilst researching for a reply to a different post in this thread on -user (the thread sadly spans at least three lists), I realised that the constitution doesn't say where GRs should be announced, and I couldn't find any advice on the subject in a scan over policy, either. FWIW, Constitution §4.2.5 says: 5. Proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other formal actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable electronic mailing list designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s); any Developer may post there. Cheers, Ahhh... this is like RFPs and legal announcements - as long as you post it somewhere, you're covered. As opposed to requiring posting in a highly visible place. No, that's entirely appropriate language for the constitution, which is *very* difficult and time-consuming to change. It's up to the Leader's Delegate to have a policy about how and where GRs are announced, and that policy is very clearly stated at https://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal. (Even if the constitution were easy and quick to change, that wouldn't mean it should be done trivially or lightly, of course.) -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d085787e369dc7ff87adfcfca06d0...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: State of the debian keyring
On 2014-02-23 17:22, Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:49:37PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: This is not what is written here: http://keyring.debian.org/replacing_keys.html Please update that page. In particular, it *requires* a third party to request the key swap on your behalf. Paragraph 2 on that page states: | If key X is still valid then Alice may sign the request using that key, | but must ensure key Y is signed by key X as well as at least 2 other | active Debian developers whose keys are in the keyring. What would you suggest as alternative wording which is clearer? 2. Alice must sign a message with key X, requesting its replacement with key Y. That statement should contain key fingerprints and Debian login details. Key Y must be signed by key X as well as at least 2 other active Debian developers whose keys are in the keyring. If key X is no longer trustworthy (for example, revoked because it was lost or compromised) she must get a Debian developer (ideally not Bob) to make the request on her behalf; this developer must also have performed the appropriate checks to enable them to be comfortable signing key Y. The last sentence still isn't clear to me (or rather, its starting point in the original document is not); should the non-Bob developer also sign the key Y? Is it acceptable for this developer to be the second signatory on the new key, or does a third DD need to be involved? -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- 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/61997270efb21e1b1bf9244df2dab...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: Secure login
Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:14:04PM +, Steven Cooper wrote: Hello I understand that Debian OS has open source security software. However, i wonder if, in particular, you know of the software i am looking to find? In other words, may you please assist by letting me know if there is some way i can secure my Debian installation with the following configuration... The security configuration i am interested to set is: - Debian does not boot without preconfigured pendrive stick in USB port - immediately after boot then a pass phrase expected to be entered - if only one of the two above mentioned criteria is not met then then login is impossible Debian hard disk is to be encrypted, then copying or partial burning with failed login is impossible (or interpreting what the data is on the disk is impossible). Please may you inform if this is possible with open source softwares? Also, please may you explain which the softwares is? Thank you Steven Cooper You can seek assistance for this kind of configuration from debian-u...@lists.debian.org, #debian on OFTC. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- 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/20130124180503.gk4...@ernie.home.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: upload processing resumed
On 2012-12-06 18:33, Joerg Jaspert wrote: as we have found a bug in a part of our archive software that might lead to remote code execution, we have stopped processing uploads until this bug is fixed. We expect that to happen pretty soon, though Thursday is more likely to see a fix than the rest of this Wednesday. And while the main archive got it turned back on around noon UTC, the other archives just got it back. So all back to normal, nothing to see, go on fixing RC bugs please. :) Thanks for securing it quickly :) Is there any danger of the vulnerable code being in use on other systems, e.g. as part of a dak install? -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- 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/2566b9920f03eb25fbf7a3f32de67...@hogwarts.powdarrmonkey.net
Proposed membership category - Debian Bureaucrat
With Debian Maintainers, Members and Developers available for new memberships, we seem to have one important missing category: the Debian Bureaucrat. This proposal should, of course, be discussed and committeed to death in light of its contents. Job Description: 1) to ensure that agreed procedure is not wavered in any way 2) to ensure that standards of paperwork do not slip 3) to record in minute detail all discussion and decision for the benefit of future Bureaucrats and other Members 4) to carry out other tasks from the Chief Bureaucrat following approval from the Bureaucrat Committee as may from time to time be desirable Debian Bureaucrats are full members of Debian but do not have upload rights. They can, however, petition the appropriate persons to ensure that any upload is denied if the requisite paperwork is not in place, for example if an Intent to Package has not been filed with a suitable notice period, package description, copyright information and so on. A key role of the Debian Bureaucrat is to ensure that all views are taken into consideration during discussion on mailing lists. It should be stressed that this is not a discretionary role (the Bureaucrat does not try to reach a consensus or put forward his own proposals to resolve the dispute) but instead refers such matters to the Bureaucrat Committee. The Committee will in this case set up a sub-committee to examine the issue, taking all views into consideration, in a manner which is consistent with the British Royal Commission. It is envisaged that the sub-committee will not be in a position to report its findings to the Developers until the discussion has become boring, irrelevant and abandoned anyway. Debian Bureaucrats must pass through the New Members process as for any other Member, but they should not be accepted until every 'i' is dotted and 't' crossed on their application, in preparation for the diligent work ahead. Similarly it may seem beneficial for them to undertake NM more than once, but as this is a judgement call and not fixed procedure it should be decided by the Front Desk and not another Bureaucrat. Real-life Bureaucrats are known to relish any opportunity to impose rigid procedure to some aim by an individual. With this in mind, some fun starter tasks might be to: 1) determine, document and enforce a complete procedure for NEW packages, beginning with an Intent to Package and ending with acceptance from the NEW queue - for bonus marks, several rounds of consultation with Developers should be undertaken at various stages of the process 2) regulate mailing list discussion by establishing a system of proposal before discussion begins, with perhaps a sub-committee considering what the agreed aims of any discussion should be and how to measure their success 3) regularly produce statistics and analysis on all areas of Debian life, and ensure that appropriate interpretation and guidance notes accompany them. Finally it should be stressed that on no account may a Debian Bureaucrat undertake work to simplify any procedure, paperwork or system. Such action would be wholly against the spirit of the job. Instead, Debian Bureaucrats should ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for a perfect eco-system; one in which every Member has a voice and all views are taken into consideration at the appropriate stage, and no decision is rushed or taken lightly. To paraphrase Sir Humphrey: to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 directhex i have six years of solaris sysadmin experience, from 8-10. i am well qualified to say it is made from bonghits layered on top of bonghits -- 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/20120401104501.gb14...@lupin.home.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: About logo copyright in http://www.jveloso.cl/?
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:53:37AM +0100, Dominique Dumont wrote: [ I fixed OP's grammar issues to make this thread more clear] On Saturday 12 March 2011 21:38:52 Kanibal v wrote: I just saw this site http://www.jveloso.cl/ that is using Debian logo here in Chile, I would like to ask you if this enterprise is [allowed] to use the logo or if the logo copyrigth [allows] this. Logo license is specified there: http://www.debian.org/logos/ IANAL, but I don't think http://www.jveloso.cl/ usage of Debian logo is allowed by the license as it does not refer to Debian project. This clause is for the logo with Debian text. The license for the logo without Debian is as follows (where I believe 'software' is the logo): | Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a | copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), | to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation | the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, | and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the | Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: | | The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in | all copies or substantial portions of the Software. I'm deliberately not offering any advice because I am not a lawyer. I suggest that further discussion is moved to debian-legal or to SPI, who are the copyright holders. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [SPAM]
Hi, On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 02:13:22PM +0500, ktauhidu wrote: Good day! I have a laptop Acer Aspire 5520g on it does not work the microphone. Tell me how to fix the problem. Installed debian 2.22.2 build 18/09/2008 Please contact the user support list, debian-u...@lists.debian.org (and include a proper subject line, so it's easier for people to spot your message). -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Partners
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 07:49:09PM +0100, Jesús M. Navarro wrote: Humm... don't think so. Building, say, a Debian Professional distribution would indeed be a Debian's trademark violation and that's probably what the original poster was asking to do. Of course, if the pro version was also called Debian, that would be a trademark violation. But if it were called something else, it's just a derivative. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 -- 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/20101219195940.ga15...@lupin.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: Partners
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:36:06PM +, anthony budd wrote: I was looking at your website on the partners program page, and i was wondering. Does being a partner give the right to sell Debian? Or if not do you offer a program in which a business can sell Debian for a commission? Debian is free software[1], anybody can reproduce CDs for users and charge whatever they like for that convenience. Equally, any user can choose to buy CDs from a vendor or download Debian directly - it's their choice. Regarding partners: The project is run by volunteers; the companies listed on the partners page are those that have provided ongoing assistance through hardware, hosting, or some other service. People who have given financial donations are recognised differently [2]. 1: http://www.debian.org/social_contract 2: http://www.debian.org/donations -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Partners
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:12:37PM +, anthony budd wrote: But is it not the case that if someone sold your OS for any price yet downloaded it for free would infringe the copyright law? No, because the software you download is made availabe under a free license, see the previous links and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html The service you are providing is downloading the software and putting it onto some kind of media for users to install. You can charge whatever you like for that service, but you can't force people to use it because they are free to download it themselves at their own cost. Otherwise could we negotiate a commission system were I sell the OS in the UK? If you redistribute Debian and make a profit, you could consider making a donation to the project to fund further development. But no, there is no commission system and there will probably never be. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Partners
Please keep this discussion on-list, that is debian-project@lists.debian.org, and avoid top-posting (http://idallen.com/topposting.html). On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:51:50AM +, anthony budd wrote: If a system could be arrnaged what would be the terms? Also could a pro version be made. When I say made I just mean make it look diffent with minor changes. So that people can buy a new and inovative product. You don't seem to have understood the purpose of Debian, or its philosophy, or read the links I sent you. Of course you can take our works, make them look prettier and redistribute them for money, but you still have to honour the license terms of each package. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: network card
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 07:51:00AM -0400, chris chalifoux wrote: hi i was wondering will 512AN_MMWW2 it is a min pci exprress card and i was wondering will it woork ? thank you chris Please ask on the debian-u...@lists.debian.org list, as copied. -- Jonathan Wiltshire 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 -- 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/20100902122605.ga24...@lupin.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: Micro or Mini SD Cards
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 01:16:01PM +0100, theNerd wrote: I want to purchase a new Core i5 notebook with a Micro and Mini SD Card Reader installed on the machine. Is it possible to download Debian and then format a 16GB Micro or Mini SD Card and then install the operating system onto the Micro or Mini SD Card and then boot the laptop with the Micro or Mini SD card in the card reader instead of using the hdd from the bios. In short: probably, but please ask debian-u...@lists.debian.org (where all queries of this sort should be directed). -- Jonathan Wiltshire 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian / Repositories / Packages
Hi, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:29:03AM +0200, Piotrek P wrote: Hello there! I would like to ask about some debian packages thing. On site packages.debian.org we can find all official packages and theirs depends. How should I know what depend should I install first to install another and the another up to last one? Is there any list? For example... when I try to install xorg I am able to download all packages that are needed but making dpkg -i *.deb sometimes give me error about depends. Wheny trying dpkg -i *.deb once again, it all goes well. I can reproduce this error for xorg if needed. If you use the high-level package managers (apt-get, aptitude, synaptic ...) they will solve these dependencies for you automatically. For further questions please ask the debian-us...@lists.debian.org list. -- Jonathan Wiltshire 1024D: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 -- 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/20100426062502.ga31...@lupin.powdarrmonkey.net
Re: Andreas Barth: How to (not) protect privacy
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: So, here is the status. To make progress towards a web interface for DDPO-by-mail, which was asked in [1], and a way to generate the email automatically (instead of manually[2]), I imported the list of PTS subscribers into UDD. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00302.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/02/msg00341.html The list of (package, subscribers) is already available to DDs on master.d.o (/org/packages.qa.debian.org/bin/get-summary-subscribers.pl), so the fact that this information is also available to DDs in UDD is nothing new. This does not bother me. I trust DDs with this like I trust them not to trash my /. However, data stored in UDD is also available to a wider public: - people with an alioth SSH access can access UDD even if they are not DDs - data is exposed on the web at http://udd.debian.org/ This *does* bother me. There is no reason for my subscription preferences to be available to either of these groups of people (where the latter is everybody in the world). That sounds like an acceptable compromise to me. Of course, it can be revisited, but I'm not sure of what would be an acceptable compromise, so I'm not going to propose anything here. An acceptable compromise to me is to email the results of the cgi to the address in question, or failing that - to be able to opt-out (or in) to such a service. -- Jonathan Wiltshire, who is not a DD but can still see your subscriptions. 1024D: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:13:17PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:49:40AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote: Do we as developers have other ways to say This is really bad, please don't other than doing a GR. Well, if you *really* want to do that, I've a technical device to offer. In the past days, by coincidence, I've worked to setup a devotee instance on master.d.o, run by myself, with the purpose of taking polls as we usually vote for GR. In a broader sense, the ability for proposers of ideas to take a straw poll in this manner could be valuable for getting an idea of what the general developer community thinks. In my experience of some lists, it seems that developers aren't willing to get drawn into a long discussion but might welcome an opportunity to say 'yes', 'work on it more' or 'no' and then get back to work. However, there are many contributors who aren't eligible to vote on GRs because they are not full DD yet, including me, yet the 'proposal' we're discussing affects us deeply too. Might you find a way to include us (maybe the DM keyring is a good start)? -- Jonathan Wiltshire 1024D: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian redesign
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 08:12:48PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I agree with Marga in that I don't think these images are appropriate for marketing Debian. This doesn't detract at all their artistic and other qualities, but I don't think we as a project should use sexuality, eroticism, or nude figures, to market ourselves. It is not just ethically wrong and degrading, it also tells people we have no substance. I'm not sure a man fighting off bugs is a great image to put about either ;) The posters are beautiful and clearly drawn with love and care, and I like them. However, I agree that the figures need more clothes before they are suitable for marketing the project. -- Jonathan Wiltshire 1024D: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: questions on licenses
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:18:02AM -0500, Dori wrote: I was hoping it would be embedded within the .deb files but apparently it is not. Every official Debian package ships with a file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright which details the license and copyright information. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Who uses @packages.d.o mail?
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:30:03PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: If this is actually the case, I'd like to close the domain down to only accept mail from other debian.org machines. If it's not, I'd like to work with people who do use it to either make it possible to send their mail from debian.org machines or from a short whitelist of machines elsewhere. The debian-l10n-english team, and perhaps others, use this domain to keep the maintainer in the loop during Smith English-language reviews and the subsequent translations. These mails almost certainly won't come from debian.org hosts (and not being a DD, mine couldn't do anyway). -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
