Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:02:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are good reasons for having the checks that we do in the NM queue; I don't think there's anything in there that should be cut out, being a full member of Debian does bring with it a lot of privilege and responsibility, and the process for deciding to grant those privileges should be pretty heavy-weight. I disagree with the above. The *process* should be lightweight, so that work is getting done on debian instead of the NM process. The *testing* should be harsh, severe and - well - testing. Changing the NM process from the current interrogation into something more evidence- or portfolio-based is long overdue. Instead of testing that people can read and write policy, we should test that people can do key tasks. Sometimes this may be a dummy task, as not everything can be done by everybody for real, but hopefully not too often. However, I seem to recall that this is not a popular opinion yet. Hmm. (Prepare for an anecdote). I just finished the NM process. I felt that while the process took an excessively long time to complete, it *did* have a good balance of policy and portfolio. That is, there were some very lengthy emails involving answering detailed policy questions and expressing opinions about particular points of Debian policy. In addition to that, however, I did have to do the following: * write a script that used ar, tar, cpio, sed (I am a bit fuzzy on the exact tools that were allowed) to extract a binary deb and get and/or change certain information from the package * pick three open RC bugs, solve them and prepare an NMU, then submit the diff to the maintainer of the affected package (so that I would not actually be doing the NMU) * watch debian-mentors and choose one or two packages and sponsor them; that is, go through all the checks of the package and prepare, including signing the package for upload, as though I were to sponsor the upload myself and then pass it to my AM. Of course, there were some other minor things, but I think the overall balance was good. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:58:03PM -0400, Michael Olson wrote: I am one such person who wishes to be able to upload Debian packages for software that I maintain without becoming a DD. The main reason for not wanting to become a DD is an adverse reaction to the result of Debian Vote 2006-1 -- I don't want to become a part of the group of people who were responsible for classifying the GFDL as non-free. Well, what part of you can't change this is actually Free? The outcome was that if something uses the GFDL without invariant sections, then it is Free (as in DFSG-compliant). If something has invariant sections, then it (at least that part of it) is not Free. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:13:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: The question is, is there a way we can minimize the overhead of integrating contributions from folks who aren't (yet) DDs? Given what I see and hear from various sponsors, the review of sponsored uploads is already a joke; various sponsors already trust their sponsorees implicitly, so if there's already no real review happening, are we better off dispensing with the illusion? How is that an illusion. If the sponsor has sponsored twenty uploads for a candidate and they have all been flawless or nearly so, then is there actually anything wrong with the sponsor implicitly trusting the candidate? The obvious con to such a system is that it means we will have uploads from (less experienced) maintainers who have not gone through the full NM process. The possible pros are a more limber process that lets everyone (NMs and DDs alike) focus on accomplishing things instead of having to focus on the process, keeping momentum up, and so forth. The big (hard-to-quantify) unknown is whether this would have a positive or negative effect on overall distribution quality... I think the line is rather blurry. If you have someone who just started in NM and is working on his first or second package, then that individual should not have unsupervised upload ability. However, if you have someone who has been in NM for a year, packaged 20 packages and prepared 50 uploads, I would say that person is probably able to handle things on his own. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:56:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:44:59PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: I think the line is rather blurry. If you have someone who just started in NM and is working on his first or second package, then that individual should not have unsupervised upload ability. However, if you have someone who has been in NM for a year, packaged 20 packages and prepared 50 uploads, I would say that person is probably able to handle things on his own. Um. Quantity != quality. I hope no one is going to grant someone upload privileges based solely on the number of times they've prepared package revisions. I did not mean to imply that quantity and quality were somehow equivalent. However, there is usually a direct corellation between quantity and experience. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: X Windows...
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 04:51:30PM -0700, Dos Rios. wrote: Hi, Why is Debian a two, or three, day project when others instal and boot in minutes? Clearly you have not tried the new installer. Far easier than any Windows installation. It seems that X windows has given a bad name to Linux for long enough. Of course Debian can direct their attention to the experts if they want; but confronted with the amount of research a beginner must do, he will just go back to winXP. I'm sure that you have some sort of reference or citation to back this up, no? It is hard to imagine that the computer elite have so little interest in promoting Linux that they don't see the reason that Linux has not kicked Bill Gates out. Could it be that the so called computer elite are more interested in making a quality operating system and quality software than in promoting it? Read the attached - at least the last lines. br /address hr /body/html Ahh, yes most informative. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: APT copyright
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:04:45PM -0500, Heidi Nicewander wrote: Hello, I was wondering if you have a copyright for APT. The Department of Human Services for Michigan wants to use APT (Adoptive Parent Training) as a part of a new program. Thanks for your time, Heidi Nicewander I think that you are confusing copyright with trademark. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian in the Federal Government
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:11:58PM -0500, Marty wrote: In contrast, a transition from Debian (or more realistically, from Unix) to windows results in a massive increase in job security, due the immediate need for more support staff. It is also a morale killer. I once spoke with a senior sysadmin at a government agency in New Mexico. They had a sweet cross-platform authentication setup for Windows, Linux and Unix clients using LDAP and Samba on a Red Hat server. Then they got a new CIO who was convinced that MS stuff was better. He declared by fiat that they would be moving over to Active Directory. Of course, no new admins were hired. They did have some Windows savvy people since they run Exchange and some other things. But Active Directory is another beast entirely. Anyhow, with no new admins and an executive decree that they move to an authentication that was orders of magnitude more complex than what they had previously (authenticating Windows to Samba is much easier than authenticating Linux and Unix to Active Directory, I am told), they were hurting real bad. Of course, their jobs were much more secure, but I'm sure they could have done without it. I work around windows sysadmins and hear all of their daily problems (but job security will never be one of them). I find it funny when I can easily script common tasks and the Windows admins must sit there and repeatedly click to do something as simple as setup a new user. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Criteria for a successful DPL board
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:37:53AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: It tries to give: - more momentum to the leadership: clearly a single leader is swamped with administrivia and even the addition of a 2IC didn't let Anthony finish his first proposal (about giving single-package upload rights to some people which don't want to become full DD but want to maintain just one or two packages) Did finishing this proposal entail the policy *and* technical implementation, or only one or the other? I would submit that the policy part is the DPL's job, but the technical is probably not as it can be delegated to a capable DD to implement within the confines of the stated policy. What, precisely, prevented Anthony from setting down the policy? Did it require additional approval that was not forthcoming (e.g., a GR or other policy instrument that required wider approval)? Did the things that kept him bogged down really fall under the responsibility of the DPL? If so, how will having a group of bogged down people be an improvement over having a bogged down individual? - better decision taking: when you have a big discussion, it's difficult to take a decison alone, you take the sole responsibility of it... whereas when you're 10 which are deciding, it's easier to assume the outcome. It is also harder to accomplish anything. Depending on your point of view, this can be good or bad. - better respect of the leadership: if you don't like the leader, it's easy to dismiss any of its decision, but if you have 6 people in the board that you respect and 4 that you don't trust too much, you're more likely to accept the outcome of a given decision. I disagree. Please look at how the general US population views the Congress. It's also a form of leadership that fits better our own internal workings. If a board member goes MIA, we still have 9 others who are there. That is a valid point. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Plain English Please
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:44:34PM +, Teresa wrote: Hi I just took a look at your website and was going to download Debian to try it out when I went to the appropriate page I was bombarded with a row of meaningless numbers form this address on http://ftp.ticklers.org/debian-cd/ you may as well have written it in machine code for all the sense it make unless you think that we are all geeks then your on a hiding to nothing. I'm afraid Bill Gates got nothing to fear. Write it out so that non geekys can understand it. Glyn Thomas Did you happen to read this [0]? 'Debian is available for different computer architectures - make sure you are getting images that match your computer! (Most people will need images for i386, i.e. Intel systems.)' Of course, right below that it says that the latest official release is 3.1 rev4. Then, of course, these things are all also covered in the FAQs. Regards, -Roberto [0] http://www.debian.org/CD/ -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian in the Federal Government
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:16:22PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I am disappointed to find many public-sector and SME sites have licence-expired copies of Winzip and unlicensed copies of Photoshop. Please suggest that they should upgrade to free software tools like WiZ, Gimp and GSView. It turns out that the response in cases like that is one of two things: 1. we'll pay up and get the licenses current 2. we can do without it Though, my understanding is that at state and local levels (universities, community colleges, etc) the idea of using free software alternatives is much more accepted. Where I did my undergrad, GSView was on every windows machine on campus, just to point out one instance. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian in the Federal Government
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:09:43AM +0200, Linas ??virblis wrote: As for the somebody to yell at argument, well... that sounds like a myth to me. Never heard of anyone contacting a software vendor when things break. I could be wrong on this one, though. Yes, I do work there. And this seems to be going a little off-topic... One conversation I had with a sysadmin at a government agency went something like this: me: Why do you guys use RHEL instead of CentOS or Whitebox? him: Well, RHEL is approved and since we buy licenses, there is someone to hold accountable. me: So, when your exchange server goes down in flames, do you immediately call Microsoft and hold them accountable? him: No. me: So, will you call RedHat when the webserver goes down in flames? him: No. me: I rest my case. him: (dumbfounded look) It proved very exasperating. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian in the Federal Government
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:09:05PM -0500, Karl R. Harger wrote: I enjoy Debian. It's easy to work with, easy to install, easy to modify and is suitable for most of my needs. In Government contracting, Linux has seen greater use. More often, as an OS underneath of Oracle, but for other purposes as well. As a systems administrator, far away from the decision makers and their utmost concern of the bottom line, I find that I am generally removed from the process of selecting software. In any event, I wish that I had more control, and was permitted to run Debian on my cubicle desktop. Based on my interactions with people who make or influence the decision of what software to buy for particular things, it is all about the warm fuzzy feeling for the higher-ups. That is, I have seen places in the government that are nearly all RHEL for servers *and* workstations. There is custom software used by the government that only runs on Linux. I once asked someone at one of these places why they don't use something like CentOS or Debian. The response that I got was something to do with having someone to hold accountable outside the organization, someone to call and yell at when things go wrong and with the idea being ingrained into everyone that software must be licensed. Of course, at most of these places you will find that everyone has the trial version of Winzip, a JRE and Adobe reader on their windows desktops. Then again, I have seen places where the admins were really sharp and managed to convince management that RHEL was a waste of money for them and they are all Fedora (not something I would do) and CentOS. Unfortunately, I don't know of any places within the government, no matter how Linux-friendly, that use Debian unless it is hidden as the underpinnings of something purchased from a contractor or reseller or in an embedded device. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:02:43PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I've suggested that iceweasel provides+conflicts+replaces firefox, which AFAICT would instead produce the output: Note, selecting iceweasel instead of firefox [...other stuff about packages...] Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Would that be better, in your opinion? I don't know if it's possible. I think that would require ftpmaster assistance (because it makes firefox a virtual package as I understand If it turns firefox into a virtual package, then it cannot be done. The reason is that virtual packages cannot have versioned dependencies expressed against them. In this way, with firefox instead being a dummy package, other packages can continue to express versioned dependencies on firefox and everything still works. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 01:11:26AM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote: Answers: Etch apt-get I was informed by apt-get that Iceweasel package will be installed, but I wasn't informed that instead of Firefox and it is a problem! If I would like to uninstall (even current version of) Firefox I would do it myself. So, you are running the *testing* distribution, you perform an 'apt-get upgrade', it decides it wants to install *new* packages and you proceed *blindly* without investigating *why* the new package was being installed? I'm sorry, but it seems like you did this to yourself. Had you bothered to run and 'apt-cache show iceweasel', you would have seen what was going on. Had you been running aptitude, which has been the preferred and better supported package manager for Debian since the release of Sarge, you would have seen by simply highlighting the iceweasel package that it was being installed because firefox depended on it. I'll say again, you did this to yourself and your initial flame against everyone was highly uncalled for. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:55:33PM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote: Only Etch supports amd64, so I was forced to use Etch. There is an unofficial Sarge release for amd64. I use it on a couple of servers and many Debian users the unofficial Sarge with no problems. Command I have used: apt-get install firefox NOT apt-get install iceweasel I knew exactly what I was doing, because my friend told me that there will be no longer firefox in debian, instead of it will be iceweasel, so I was curious what will happen after typing: ^^^ Hmm. apt-get install firefox There is no longer firefox in debian etch, so after typing: apt-get install firefox I would like to see announcement: Firefox packages are no longer present in debian distribution, please try iceweasel. OK. Here are the announcements: http://lists.debian.org/debian-news/debian-news-2006/msg00044.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00328.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/10/msg00665.html The debian-news item is from mid-October of 2006. There was also Lots of discussion about it on various Debian mailing lists. Do you see a difference? Nope. I don't use aptitude, because I prefer command line. OK. Then 'aptitude update aptitude dist-upgrade' will work just the same. Of course, it won't tell you *why* since you are not in the aptitude browser, but aptitude works on the command line just like apt-get and keeps better track of things to boot. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
Please quit top posting. On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 04:52:29PM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote: Iceweasel and Firefox are a different products, very similar, but different. So I think that debian should no longer use firefox as a name for iceweasel package! Except that the release managers and package maintainers don't want to leave their users without an upgrade path. They felt that Iceweasel was natural upgrade path. I must say that I agree with that since it is effectively the same thing as Firefox, but rebranded and with a couple of non-free bits removed. I think that automatically upgrading people to Iceweasel is better than leaving the stagnant Firefox package since: - The security team can't support - Debian is not allowed to continue redistributing - People may not know to go looking for it I will give you an example: You are typing: aptitude update aptitude dist-upgrade and after that you realize that you have no longer debian, but knoppix or ubuntu... ups... they are very similar you can say, but did you want to change your debian to ubuntu? I think: no! What you are saying does not make sense. Debian - Knoppix and Debian - Ubuntu are not natural upgrade paths for many reasons. Be realist, do everybody have a time to read all news carefully? No, but you said all you wanted was an announcement. I gave you three. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:43:59AM -0500, Stephen R Laniel wrote: Here is a script that I banged out in a few minutes, which surely needs much improvement but will hopefully go some way toward making the top-posting debate -- which is surely the least interesting debate in the history of computing -- go away: http://laniels.org/scripts/top_post_fixer.pl.txt This will tag all the lines in a given message by whether they're raw line or one containing a quote. It's primitive, but hopefully it's enough of a start that someone can expand upon it and end the spectacularly stupid debate. That is neat, but it does nothing for the list archived. Arguably, the problem is not severe there, though. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 09:40:52PM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: Otherwise I would like to see what kind of OPERATIONAL difference you have found: - you still can fall iceweasel as firefox on the command line - you can browse the web *IN THE EXACT SAME WAY* You can even use the same extensions. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian, Iceweasle, Firefox!
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:44:13AM +0100, Piotr Dziubinski wrote: I'm irritated cause I expect that operating system will ask me about such kind of changes. It is a reason why I have started to use Linux. I want to have complete control in all changes made in my operating system. As You mentioned, Iceweasel isn't real Firefox. If I knew that upgrade of Firefox, would change my Firefox into Iceweasel, Ihttp://www.google.pl/search?hl=plclient=firefox-arls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialhs=P3usa=Xoi=spellresnum=0ct=resultcd=1q=wouldn%27tspell=1wouldn't do it! Out of curiousity, how did you not realize that Iceweasel was going to get installed? Do you not pay attention to what packages are to be installed on your system? You are running Etch or Sid, correct? You do realize that they are not stable and subject to volatile changes at times. Correct? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Measuring Debian progress
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 08:04:31PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Total number of non-pseudo-packages that bugs.debian.org knows about. * Number of open bugs, in total, and for each severity, and a count of all non-wishlist, non-wontfix bugs. * Number of bugs opened or closed since the previous report. * Median and maximum times for first reply to a non-wishlist bug. * Median and maximum times since latest reply to a non-wishlist bug. * Median and maximum age of currently open bugs. * Median and maximum duration from opening to closing of closed bugs (total, and since previous report). * Number of bugs younger than a month, younger than a year, or older than a year. * Number of packages with 0 bugs, 1-5 bugs, 6-20 bugs, 21-100 bugs, more than 100 bugs. * Minimum, median, and maximum Bogonic Quality Numbers. (Snip mathematical proof of Bogonic Quality Numbers :) I would like to offer my completely worthless 2 cents here. I think that the aggregate statistics are OK. It will help to identify trends in the distribution as a whole. They are not perfect, but then no metric really is. For example, right now, many maintainers upload updated packages that fix lots of problems. Some of those fixes are the product of a bug report and/or patch. Howerver, many of those fixes are the result of the maintainer himself/herself encountering something wrong and fixing it without an associated bug report. If someone wanted to help improve the statistics he/she could simply open a bug for every single changelog entry for an update and then upload the update that same day. I'm not saying that everyone, or even anyone, will do that. However, it is something of which we need to be aware when evaluating/analyzing the metrics. There are lots of other issues, but I will not go into those now. Now, my opinion on the Bogonic Quality Numbers is that they should be left out entirely. The only thing worse than metrics is useless or incorrect metrics. Because of the nature of software and the wide range of packages in Debian, any attempt to assign a quality metric to a particular package is probably not worthwhile. Again, that is my worthless 2 cents. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Etch Stable.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 07:58:50PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: Which is why we release with gnome 2.14. I don't understand. Do you consider this to be a good thing or a bad thing? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Delete my message on one Debian List Please
On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 03:33:15PM +, Steve Kemp wrote: The suggestion wasn't to remove the addresses, but to mask them. That would still allow you to lookup the sender addresses if you wished. eg [EMAIL PROTECTED] - foo at com.example. I'd strongly second the proposal myself, as well as updating some of our other email-based-systems. For example listing emails in the qa pages, in Debian changelog entries on packages.debian.org, etc. Except that it ends up mangling things which are not email addresses and which legitimately need to have the @ symbol. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 03:21:10PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: Sorry for the wording but it's way more than I can take: On 10/27/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: [...] - How is the success of this experiment measured? (For the release as well as for the entire project) An experiment is successful as long as it provides useful information. What the is this definition of successful??! First, foul language is not necessary. Second, it is the academic definition. See, an experiment is performed to confirm or dispel a hypothesis. If it does either, and you can explain way or draw some other useful conclusion from it, then it is a success. It's so stupid I wonder whether you're playing smarts thinking you're addressing idiots in your reply, and you believe you can get away with it; or if you're actually mentally deficient, which I'd rather hope not. Both makes me wanna puke. I'm reaching the conclusion that electing you as DPL was the worst experiment Debian has ever gotten itself into. This opinion being based solely on your sayings and acts about this experiment, as I don't know you, and don't care anymore about what you've done before (good or bad). Indeed, do you actually /think/ about what you write on public mailing-lists, and keep in mind that even when you're not posting as [EMAIL PROTECTED], you're actually the DPL in charge anyway? Or is the whole concept of leadership and the accompanying responsibilities totally unknown to you? Understanding that successful has nothing to do with useful is probably within the reach of a 10-year-old kid... I guess the vast majority of d-d-a readers can spot the difference as well! Here's an example of successful experiment based on such metrics: fatal human experimentation of new drugs (the patient dies, but at least the scientists/doctors can collect useful data. I doubt they'd call it a successful experiment though). There are many more examples but I'd rather avoid falling under Godwin's Law (though, according to the rule, it would probably end the thread). Actually, what you describe is a successful experiment. In fact, the Nazis did such things with humans. Now, such things are not ethical. But then, the discussion is not about whether the experiment is considered ethical, but rather the discussion is about which conditions would make the experiment a success. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Improving the DAM-queue?
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:14:40PM +, Bill Allombert wrote: [1] The same happen for unmaintained packages: the hurdle for taking them over is so high most maintainers do not bother. Consider that I have hijacked most of my current packages so I know something about that. There are maintainers that never made a single upload of the package, the last upload being 3 years old, but will not even let you do an NMU to fix trivial-to-fix but painful bugs. Perhaps it is worth spelling out in policy that if package has bugs filed against it and there is no activity for x days (180 or 365 seem good), the package *will* be orphaned from you. Of course, extenuating circumstances could exist. However the number of packages *with* bug activity that can legitimately go six months or a year without updating or at least replying to the bugs is *extremely* small. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Improving the DAM-queue?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 09:20:15PM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote: Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: Thus, people who don't know me and don't know the quality of my work must waste time checking up on my work so that they feel safe sponsoring my packages. That time would be better spent helping out someone who is just getting started. I agree with your other points, however this one here is mooth. Every sponsor shall review any package as carefull as possible, regardless from whom it was prepared, to ensure integrity of the archive. What you have said is my point. For all intents and purposes I am already a DD (sans FD/DAM formality checks and accounts). What special knowledge will be imbued upon me when my accounts are created that will make it so I no longer require a sponsor to look over my shoulder? Thus, the requirement that every sponsor review every package which he/she sponsors, while necessary, also bears an additional burned due to the slow processing of the DAM queue. AFAICT, as people get further along in NM they tend to work on more packages or on the packages they have more often. This requieres more sponsorship, for each and every single upload. So, for every single applicant who is declared ready by his/her AM, there will be a six month windows where another DD must check up on the applicant's work for no reason other than the applicant is handicapped from being allowed to upload. Some are fortunate to work on teams which have a DD or two , but others are not. Now, some people may think that an extra six months of having packages verified before upload is a good thing. I am not opposed to it myself, but if this is going to be the standard way of things, it needs to be stated explicitly in the NM policy. Something like: Upon the declaration of the AM that the applicant has completed all necessary checks involving the AM and forwarding the application to the FD, the applicant will be required to wait a minimum of six months before the accounts are finally created. This period is intended as a time when prospective Debian developers can operate with less supervision than under the initial phases of the NM process and gain valuable experience that will be necessary as a full-fledged Debian developer. In having the applicant's packages further reviewd by another Debian developer, the integrity and quality of the archive are maintained. Now, that is completely off the top of my head, so it may not even sound very good. But, you get the idea. Now, if something like were to be imlpemented, then an expedited method needs to exist for the probationary DDs to request package uploads. That is, there should be a list or an IRC channel, or whatever. That way, DDs who want to help know that they working with a package created by someone who is nearly a DD not just starting out. I think the distinction is important, because it seems as some DDs who otherwise help are put off by the time invesment required to review a new applicant's packages and provide useful feedback and answer questions. Such a need should be greatly diminshed after someone has been working on packages for 12-18 months. Now, if the probationary period is not going to be enforced as a policy, then work needs to be done to speed DAM processing. Otherwise, what is the point? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Improving the DAM-queue?
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:37:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Rather than kicking out those developers who have added to the bloat of the archive without taking responsibility for the long-term consequences of the packages they've added? :) You appear to believe that adding people to the project will improve the ratio of developers to packages. I do not; I expect it will cause the number of packages to increase in proportion to the increase in developers, because people choose to become developers to scratch *their own* itches and those will frequently be different than the itches of those who came before them and left behind orphaned packages. I do think a more limber NM process would benefit us in general, but I don't see any reason to believe that more DDs == better packages. You bring up an interesting point. It has sort of made me think of an idea which maybe can help to alleviate the problem you describe. How about requiring all new NM applicants to join an existing package maintenance team? By package maintenance team, I mean a team which lists themselves as the Maintainer in one or more packages. For example, the Perl group, or the Python group, or the Zope team, or whatever. Require that the applicant actively participate in teams activities, fixing bugs, improving existing packages and so on. This is not mean that they cannot add their own packages, rather that they need to focus at least part of their effort on improving the packages that are already in Debian. Another possibility is to require new applicants to adopt packages which are O, RFA or join someone as a co-maintainer or become a co-maintainer for a package that has an RFH out there. In the case of co-maintainership and joining a team, the lead maintainer, presumably an experienced DD, will be required to attest to the applicants participation in the group, etc. In any case, I think that there more than ample opportunities for joining teams or becoming a co-maintainer. It can be decided if such requirements are to be waived for applicants who are interested in doing primarily QA, documentation, translations, localization, internationalizations, and so on, since those are nearly always going to happen as improvements to things that are already in Debian. This may be totally off base, but I though I'd throw it out and see what discussion it generates. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 09:58:45AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: Huh? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but many things life boil down to a question of time or money. * Do I mow my lawn (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? * Do I was my car (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? * Do I program my own OS (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? * Do I work for Debian (time) or work for a client (money)? Yet, if you are able to make Debian your client, then you can do that which you enjoy *and* get paid for it. With my list, I was trying to list things that are less than desirable to most people. Things which, given the chance and sufficient surplus money, they would hire out to let someone else. You clearly enjoy, even love, working on Debian. I would most happy if someone who has contributed as much as you have to Debian could find a way to get paid to work full-time on Debian. I think that everyone would benefit greatly with such an arrangement. In the case of allocating monetary resources, the Debian project needs to identify those developers who: * have a history of dedication to the project * have a history of good quality work * have the technical ability to tackle/solve problems which Debian * will continue to be dedicated and do good work Now, AIUI, those criteria are also used for things selecting release managers, ftpmasters and even by many DDs when they elect a DPL. So, I fail to see how introducing money into the equation changes a single thing, other than that it gives people with sufficient finicial resources (or insufficient technical ability, depending on your/their perspective) the opporunity to improve Debian in ways which they would individually not be able to effect on their own. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:09:06AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Person A gets mad becuase he is afraid that person B will will get pay for something that both had originally agreed to do for free. Now there's a key part of the problem: this changes agreements that some developers made with the debian project. While that doesn't make it wrong in itself, some people may not agree with the new terms. I believe they should be allowed to state their objections in an effective way and suggest ways to find a wider agreement, as a bare minimum. However, Dunc-Tank seems to be a bizarre half-in-yet-half-out-of the debian project structure which changes the agreement and still tries to involve DDs, yet is ultimately beyond the project's control. I'm not aware of the particulars of dunc-tank. However, in most cases where a benefactor donates monetery resources to an organization, think school, non-profit org, etc, the donor is ultimately beyond the control of the organization. Now, based on your reasoning, the United Way should reject a $10 million donation from Warren Buffet. I mean, seriously, that money would be used to pay full-time and part-time staff. But others are there volunteering to work for free. Paying some people and not others would make those who are not payed unhappy. Such a thing would cause the entire organization to collapse. To say nothing of the fact that they United Way has no control over Warren Buffet. Now, if you would be so kind as to tell me what fantasy world you live in, where all charitable organizations refuse donations so as not upset their membership, I would like to come and visit. Well, tough. It is the donor's resource. It is utterly insane for a resource limited organization to refuse additional resources, If the cost of accepting a donation is greater than refusing it, then it is insane to accept it. What is the cost of accepting a donation? Making a few people jealous? Life is filled with decisions. It is not possible to make everyone happy. Personally, if it will make Debian that much better, more improved, whatever, then I would rather see some DDs get jealous, or even leave the project, as in the end it will result in a better Debian GNU/Linux operating system. Is that not the goal here? especially when there are not any additional restrictions imposed. I thought all donations from dunc-tank were restricted to particular people and times. Again, I am not familiar with the particulars of dunc-tank. All of the arguments that I have seen/read have simply against the introduction of money into the projct to pay developers. But then, I don't really see anything wrong with the donor setting the terms for use of the donation. Ever hear of earmarking? The university where I attended received a large donation from a wealthy local family. They made the donation specifically for the construction of a new medical school building. That appears to be a restriction. So what? Was it going to make the engineering faculty jealous? Probably. Did the university refuse the gift? No way. It would have been foolish to do so. Now, in an ideal world, the donation would come with the instructions: spend this how you see fit, no restrictions. But even when there are restrictions, unless they go against the core beliefs of the organization (thing donation to a church to provide abortions), there is really not a good reason to refuse. It just makes the organization look like a bunch of unreasonable fanatics. Now, what core belief is violated if the Debian project allows some developers to be paid for their work on Debian? None, you say? Because it already happens? Please, people get over it. So what if someone else gets paid and you don't? If you came into it with the notion that you were going to do it for free, then that is a decision you made for yourself. For some of us, that is fine. Others will move debian down their list of priorities if they feel debian is becoming Yet Another Pay The Bills scheme. Others may move it down until they feel it benefits them more. Others may try to build little empires that only they can service, in the hope of being paid for running that empire later. How is this different than now? I'll be honest. I enjoy working on Debian. But I have limited time. One of my motivations for working on Debian is that one day I'd like to become a consultant specializing in open source solutions. Working on Debian and becoming a Debian developer will help me in that goal because I gain skills. Now, does that make me a bad person? Hopefully not :-) We've seen these patterns happen for other free software projects. Can we avoid them for debian, or at least try to predict what damage we need to take into consideration? This money is not without potential loss. Please give one example. Now, go read the parable one
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:00:12AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Le lundi 09 octobre 2006 18:54, Martin Schulze a écrit : hard on getting Debian better be funded similarily? I know that several people have lost their motivation to work on Debian as before (yes, others will hate me for writing this again) because of this. Some developers ask themselves already why they should work on some tasks, when others are to be paid for their Debian work, and they have other obligations as well. You never loose your motivation because some developers get paid to work on Debian tasks, unless you're jealous. I personaly have no real idea whether Dunc Tank is a good thing or a bad one, but seeing that a group of people is trying to improve Debian in some respect increases my motivation. Agreed. Also, the fact that some people are apparently taking the tack that improving Debian is only OK if it happens a certain way really makes me doubt whether this is something of which I want to be a part. Note, I am not going to withdraw my NM application or anything like that, it just gives me pause. I see no evil in giving people financial compensations for working full time on some key Debian tasks. If such people give the project their best with faith and dedication and enjoy it, I am very very happy for both them and the project. Same here. -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:37:32AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I would submit that people who consider quitting or actually quit over something like that probably have other issues to deal with. Can we leave the sanity attacks out of it, please? It's unhelpful to suggest that all the people with concerns about this experiment have personality problems. There is no sanity attack. In fact, what I was implying is that there is an apparent lack of maturity on the part of those who are irrationally against something which is supposed to help improve the project. Are the attacks on people because there are no good answers to the concerns of Martin Schulze and others? I am not attacking anyone. Can Dunc-Tank advocates answer these essential questions? | Why is devel 1 paid but not devel 2? 1) Because there are limited funds. Is devel 2 not doing good work? 2) No. Devel 1's work was deemed more important/critical/visible/etc. | Will it work for devel 1 if they work more on Debian so get paid as | well? 3) Why does it matter? Why does devel 1 have to work on a day-job to get something to | eat but not devel 2? 4) Because the project cannot afford to pay someone completely full-time. Or perhaps, the resources need to be spread out over more tasks. Or perhaps, the task does not require as much time. Or perhaps, devel 2 is a student and is able to his/her work in conjunction with a school project or something. Why is the project involved in selecting people | worth for funding? 5) Because the project is in the best position to prioritize tasks that are important to the project. Why can't all developers who work hard on getting | Debian better be funded similarily? 6) Because the resources are not unlimited. For example, why join the Debian project in the first place? Because it's more efficient than the alternatives for many tasks. Then that is fine. It is why we have a choice to use Debian or to use something else. It is why we have a choice to contribute to Debian or to contribute to something else. Seriously, if money is someone's nly or primary motivation, they should go work for Red Hat, Novell or Canonical. However, some developers won't make the ethical compromises necessary to do so. What if money is one of your motivations, not only or primary? Life is riddled with decisions. Most people must either make ethical compromises or financial compromises. Choose your poison. Would be great if such choices were not necessary? Yes. Though unfortunately, such denies reality. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: In my view, if I were involved in a given project, giving it a good part of my free (unpaid) time, and I were to see some other guy working on this very same project doing the same work I'm doing, I guess I wouldn't feel terribly well. Now if that guy were to do deep shit and if I had to walk behind him to collect his crap in order to keep the project in shape, I guess I would be extremely upset. I would be upset as well, as I'm sure many would be. Now, I think the idea of funding some development has merit. However, there needs to be a standard set for quality and a review process in place. Make successful and satisfactory completion predicates for payment. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 08:50:39PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 09:22:04PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: [...] The strange thing is that while I see lots of discussion about why people should or should not be allowed to fund particular developers to do particular things, I don't see any similar discussion about why people should or should not be allowed to spend their time working on the parts of Debian that interest them most. Program runs successfully here after dropping the 'assert (tine == money);' statement. Huh? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but many things life boil down to a question of time or money. * Do I mow my lawn (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? * Do I was my car (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? * Do I program my own OS (time) or hire someone to do it (money)? Seriously, I do not understand all the fuss. Are people just afraid of not being the one to get paid? Really, that is just absurd. Install the bible-kjv package and read the output of `bible matt20:1-16`. I'll give you the cliff-notes version: Different people made a deal to work for the owner of a vineyard. Some people agreed to work more hours for the same pay than others who worked fewer hours. When the owner pays the workmen at the end of the day, those who worked all day got mad for receiving the same pay (to which they initially agreed) as those who only worked the last hour. The owner rebukes the comlaining workers and tells them that it is his money to do with as he pleases. The moral of the story is that everyone here comes in to the situation of giving their time to Debian to improve it. Now, someone comes along and wants to be generous and help further improve it by donating financial resources. Person A gets mad becuase he is afraid that person B will will get pay for something that both had originally agreed to do for free. Well, tough. It is the donor's resource. It is utterly insane for a resource limited organization to refuse additional resources, especially when there are not any additional restrictions imposed. Please, people get over it. So what if someone else gets paid and you don't? If you came into it with the notion that you were going to do it for free, then that is a decision you made for yourself. Now, go read the parable one more time to make sure you understand it. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Program runs successfully here after dropping the 'assert (tine == money);' statement. Huh? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but many things life boil down to a question of time or money. Re-read my mail, I wrote that if you do not assert that time and money are equivalent resources, then your question has a trivial answer. If you want to keep this assertion as valid, you have to find another answer. I'm sorry. I don't understand your meaning. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 06:54:09PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: When money is involved the project changes. Developers will have to ask why devel 1 is paid but not devel 2? Is devel 2 not doing good work? Will it work for devel 1 if they work more on Debian so get paid as well? Why does devel 1 have to work on a day-job to get something to eat but not devel 2? Why is the project involved in selecting people worth for funding? Why can't all developers who work hard on getting Debian better be funded similarily? I know that several people have lost their motivation to work on Debian as before (yes, others will hate me for writing this again) because of this. Some developers ask themselves already why they should work on some tasks, when others are to be paid for their Debian work, and they have other obligations as well. Even if aj named this as experiment not all possible experiments have to be tried out. Somebody mentioned an unknown chemical that you probably don't experiment with by simply drinking it and watching the outcome. Though, for Debian and Dunc Tank this is exactly what is done. Paying developers of a project directly or indirectly by the project is not healthy when the project consists of more than the paid developers. Let's say that there are two packages, foo and bar. The maintainer of foo would like to have more time or more help with the package, as would the maintainer of bar. Now, if someone joins the maintainer of foo as co-maintainer to help out, the package gets better and the maintainer of foo gets to spend more time on other things, perhaps working to feed his family. Would the maintainer of package bar get upset? Probably not, he would be happy to see Debian improve. OTOH, what if this individual has no technical ability to help with package foo, but has financial resources. Perhaps he says to the maintainer of foo, I'd like to hire you to spend 10 hours a week for the next 4 weeks on this package to improve it. Now he perhaps doesn't need to work as many hours at his day job and his family still gets fed. Debian is still improved. Would the maintainer of package bar get upset? Based on what you have said, possibly. But why? The maintainer of package bar did not get upset when someone with technical ability volunteered to co-maintain package foo. How is it any different if a third-party directly hires a developer to do some work than if the third-party gives the money to the Debian project as a whole and says decide best how to spend it? Seriously, what is the difference, other than that in the latter case, some people are going to get all offended because they weren't picked? Would I love to get paid to my work on Debian? Sure, who wouldn't? But, is it going to make me quit if someone else working on something for Debian gets paid to do it? Nope. I would submit that people who consider quitting or actually quit over something like that probably have other issues to deal with. For example, why join the Debian project in the first place? Seriously, if money is someone's nly or primary motivation, they should go work for Red Hat, Novell or Canonical. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Using money to fund real Debian work
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:54:46PM +, Bill Allombert wrote: This means that someone with a lot of money will be able to decide which projects will be completed just be funding them. Other projects will not be completed because people will lack time and incentive even if these projects would improve Debian more. Developers will tend to propose task that are likely to be funded. The sponsors will have a large decision power of what is done and rightly since they funding the development. I don't see how those are entirely bad things. Some people have technical ability but no money and so they volunteer their time. Others, have little technical ability but lots of money and so would rather donate money. Saying, that is bad because the sponsors will have a large influence ignores the fact that this is exactly the situation in which we are now. The only difference is that rather than money, it is time which is used to influence. Either way, the more popular parts of the project will get more attention. Does this mean that some parts which need attention get neglected? Yes. However, the popular parts, which generally affect the most users, will get more attention whether it is people giving their time or their money. For example, there are some changes I would really like to see to svn-buildpackage. However, I know nothing about Perl, except for how to spell it. If I had the money for it (which sadly I do not), I would seriously consider hiring someone to fix that for me. Do you say that such a thing is bad? Becuase I have decided how to dedicate my money? What if I was a Perl hacker extraordinaire and decided to fix it myself? Is that bad because I have decided how to dedicate my time? The point is, time and money are both resources. If someone tried to pressure me into putting my time into something which did not interest me, I would likely refuse. If someone likewise tried to pressure me into donating my money to something which does not interest me, I would likely refuse as well. The strange thing is that while I see lots of discussion about why people should or should not be allowed to fund particular developers to do particular things, I don't see any similar discussion about why people should or should not be allowed to spend their time working on the parts of Debian that interest them most. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian firefox
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:34:30PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hope that debian can overcome the recent of firefox. It is nice for them to show their true colors. That being said I hope that debian can muster enough support to fork firefox into a new browser. One in which is truly free and embraces opensource. I would like to propose a name: Debian WaterBuffalo Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian firefox
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:46:45AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:27:01PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: I would like to propose a name: Debian WaterBuffalo I thought we already agreed on IceWeasel. :) There was some discussion about potential Firefox replacement names a few days ago on IRC. I suggested WaterBuffalo and Manoj and a couple of other people really liked it. Just an idea. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Recompilation of ALL Debian packages ...
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:57:27AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:41:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Rebuilding every package really doesn't buy you that much in the way of security. It makes it harder to hide what you did, but only harder; a rogue uploader could obfuscate a trojan in source code rather well. In the end, we still trust people in the keyring. About the only thing you gain is the potential ability to do more detailed post-mortem analysis after something already exploded. And the amount of breakage caused by actual mistakes of the uploader, like having random sets of non-official libraries installed and such. Is it not part of the process of becoming a DD (or sponsorship of packages for non-DDs) learning the responsible way to build packages. That is, developers are taught to use tools like pbuilder or sbuild in order to ensure that packages build cleanly. I'm not saying that mistakes will never occur. However, I would think that the vast majority of the people will be responsible and do it correctly the vast majority of the time. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problemas de instalacion
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 02:37:52PM -0300, Mario A. Sanchez - Sistemas - Clínica Pergamino S.A. wrote: Que tal tengo la version de debian en 2 DVD. Los DVD bootean bien, pero cuando comienza la instalación me deice que no puede montar el cdrom y se muere la instalacion. Tengo un athlon amd 64 bits con lectora de DVD, que puede ser, el mismo error me lo tira con los cdrom de instalacion Mario, Todas las listas a cual has dirigido tu mensaje, son para discusiones en inglés. Tambien, este és un problema que se pertenece a [EMAIL PROTECTED] ni a [EMAIL PROTECTED] Por favor mande tu pregunta a [EMAIL PROTECTED] Saludos, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto pgpiuL3flTL2y.pgp Description: PGP signature
