Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality
On 2022-04-08 20:35:27, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to > destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor > and reduce our carbon emissions. Agreed. > I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear Also, agreed. I think Debian should commit to become carbon neutral, and then become climate positive, and make that clear to others so that it may encourage other projects to do the same. I think the path to doing this starts with the commitment from the project. If we can get that commitment, then we are a long ways towards making this happen. Then it is about determining the organization's carbon footprint. There are organizations that can assist in determining this (eg. Offsetra). Finally, deciding on a way to reconcile that footprint. This may be the contentious aspect, as not everyone will agree that the different mechanisms that exist are the right ways to do this, but perhaps we can delay this discussion until it is clear that Debian is committed to making this happen. micah
Call for Papers -- Mini-Debconf Montreal Aug 6-9, 2020
Hello! The 2020 Montreal miniDebConf is now accepting proposals for papers, presentations, discussion sessions, and tutorials, covering all Debian topics for users, contributors and developers of all levels! Please include a short title, a longer description of the event and a short personal bio. Please also provide us with information such as scheduling restrictions or any special requirements. Session lengths can be either be 20 or 45 minutes long (including time for questions). Other kinds of sessions (such as workshops) could have different durations, please specify the most suitable duration and explain any special requests. Presentations are expected in English, but if you'd like to offer one in French, please let us know. The sessions are optionally recorded on video and these recordings will be released under the following license: https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/LICENCE Please send us your proposals to minidcmtl2...@lists.riseup.net by the submission deadline June 16, 2020. A slot will also be set aside in the schedule for lightning talks. The event will be held from August 6th. to 9th, 2020 at Concordia University. For more information about the conference, see https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/ca/2020/MiniDebConfMontreal Please forward this call to anyone who might be interested in helping us make this event a great success! à bientôt Montréal! -- micah signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Request to Mini DebConf Montreal Organizers: Fight Israel not the DC20 Team
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: Invite to join the Release Team
Clint Adams writes: > [Adding and M-F-T-ing -project] > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:04:58AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >> I want to point out that Luk's mail was not in any way discussed in the >> release team. I think it is horrible. >> >> I welcome everyone to critize the release team. I would prefer help, of >> course, but on the other hand, I do understand that people can see a >> problem, but don't have the time to fix. It would be nice if such >> criticism would be sent directly to the release team, and bluntly >> point out what the problem is, as that makes it easier to work on the >> issue. > > Okay, so when there is a mysterious release team meeting in Cambridge, > and there is no discussion or planning of it on debian-release, or > #debian-release, or anywhere else public that I can see, and there is > zero evidence that it was planned or happened on official channels, > and at least two of the participants (or whom I assume were participants) > tell me that transparency is either completely unimportant or > low-priority, and the DPL-2IC team seems to favor the opposite of > transparency, how is one supposed to know about this meeting in > time to complain about it? How and why should one complain to the > release team directly? > > Were you there? Were Debian funds spend on this endeavor? What > happened there? Most importantly, why is it all so secretive? Did I miss a response to these questions? I'm interested to know the answer to at least two of them. micah -- 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/877hot58v2@pond.riseup.net
Re: Debian Membership
* Frans Pop [2009-03-14 09:25-0400]: > On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote: > > IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :). > > Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit. > Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of demonstrated > dedication to the project through actual hard work. You should not > underestimate that. There are some companies that have had their 'bottom-line' demonstrably impacted in significant ways by open source and have undertaken various dubious mechanisms to destabilize and discredit open-source. Microsoft actually acknowledged to the SEC[0] in its required filing[1] that it may be forced to lower its prices as a result of the growth in open source, the popularization of the open-source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to its business model... Since the 1970s, the US now considers economic interests as vital for the protection of national security. Considering the economic role that Microsoft plays in the dwindling economy of the US, its not that too much of a conspiracy theory to consider the possibility that the free/opensource movement, and by extension Debian itself, as a significant economic threat to US national security. We have here a couple sufficiently well-funded adversaries, and the amount of money, time and skill to get into Debian is not that hard, especially if you are being paid to infiltrate (and potentially disrupt, c.f. COINTELPRO[2]) Every 24 hours microsoft makes 55 million dollars in pure profit. Apparantly, it takes Microsoft only 10 hours of business to exceed Red Hat's entire quarterly profits ($20.5 million), last I checked. Fortunately, Microsoft's net income seems to be rising[2], although I wonder when they might also need a 'bailout'. All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism for making Debian "secure". micah 0. http://sec.gov 1. http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/MSFTQ03-2_10-Q.doc 2. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eddy Petrişor wrote: > On 4/7/06, Micah Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload >>> privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get a say in >>> deciding how we conduct the project's business. >> By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to >> our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have >> a say in deciding how the government is run. > > Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. That would explain the > dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed > people. This is a very surprising misunderstanding of what I wrote. I do not see myself as government, I do not see Debian as government. Additionally, I do not see where you are seeing dictatorial thinking in what I wrote, in fact, I am starting to wonder how you can see so clearly what I am thinking, perhaps your surveillance equipment has given you information about my thoughts that I have not yet thought, but I will? What is particularly suprising is that you are attacking me viciously, when I believe that we have the same views on this subject, however you have extrapolated meanings far beyond what I said through a process of misunderstanding what I actually wrote, to think I am actually against you. > You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead > of their master. My message disagrees with the original poster's, which means that I think that more people should get a say in how we conduct the project's business, not less. > I wonder where did this go "Our priorities are our users and free > software". Probably, you forgot, but you are talking about Debian's > users here in general and constant contributors here. > >>> Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in >>> as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to >>> vote. >> There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who >> do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number >> of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other >> areas. > > Your point being? Please talk about Debian, not some organization of > yours. The way you conduct your buisness does not affect Debian, or at > least it shouldn't. Please dont tell me what I can and cannot talk about, I thought you were against dictatorial repression? If you want to talk about dictatorial, repression, then we can talk business, but I am not talking about business. I do not consider Debian to be a business, nor the organizations I work with. I think its completely reasonable to speak of other organizations in order to compare them with Debian. We dont live in a vacuum. My point is that someone who does work for debian does not need to have the ability to upload in order to be part of debian in some sort of 'officially' enfranchised manner. I think it is completely sane to have official debian people who do not have upload access. >> Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, >> you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have >> upload abilities to be able to be trusted. > > Somehow, your argument is twisted. Nobody said that in order to trust > someone, we should let him upload and see what will that person do, > but quite the oposite was said - once you trust, upload should be > fine, without abuses. The point is that people do not need upload access to be officially part of Debian. There is no reason for people to have upload access, unless they are doing uploads. Tell me a reason someone should have upload access if they are not doing uploads, and I will consider changing my mind. The reason people give, time and again, for why we shouldn't bring anyone else into Debian even if they have a long history of doing good work for the organization that has nothing to do with uploading, is that it would be a bad idea to give those people upload access. So, we dont give them upload access, but we allow them into the organization. If at some point they need upload access, they will have an easier chance of obtaining it I would think. Micah -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFENu6B9n4qXRzy1ioRAvPEAKCNMXky7BpG22p6oMv8gaWOhrlFuQCgpGEs 1Gru/saKD6esyUkAZ9ZIa1o= =H7Y+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 2006-04-06, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this: > >> >>> And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an >>> objective view, but I don't see any reason why translators, >>> documentation writers, artists, et al. should look at the term >>> "developer" and conclude it's not for them. >> >> First, none of these groups usually think of the work that they do >> as development. That's just not he way the word is used. But that'a >> semantic argument. The larger reason that this is a problem is >> because: >> >> (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these >> people developership since it means they can upload to the >> project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems >> (one more account to compromise, etc). > > I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload > privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get a say in > deciding how we conduct the project's business. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. > Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in > as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to > vote. There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other areas. Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have upload abilities to be able to be trusted. Micah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
