Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
All, I'd like to sign the statement as well. Hans-Georg Bork - debian user since the early days of hamm - signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment)
Good evening! Sorry for contributing to a side thread this late. This mail slept in my drafts folder for several day. Only today I find the time to finish and send it. On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:36:31 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with position statement in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the project. The signatories are clearly named. It is their position and whatever the position of the project is has little to do with it. Yes, the signatories were named. But I think the mail made it easy to misinterpret it while reading it. The first paragraphs started with: After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project Dunc Tank (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider [...] While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to [...] With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT The mail started stating some opinions referring to the group having this opinions with we. While I would consider this ambiguous anyway I think it es particular unfortunate on debian-devel-announce. I did wonder who that we might be and scrolled to the bottom after the second or third we, then continued reading. Some others might have stopped reading after some percentage of the mail and might still have a wrong impression. Trying to sum this up: This was far from being an abuse of d-d-a. But the mail could have been much clearer with little effort. I would beg anyone to consider this when writing position statements which might be controversial. Regards Florian -- Florian Hinzmann private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key / ID: 1024D/B4071A65 Fingerprint : F9AB 00C1 3E3A 8125 DD3F DF1C DF79 A374 B407 1A65 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 09:35:31PM -0300, calvesmit wrote: Marc Haber, there's no need for special privileges in Debian. Nobody is or does jobs better than others. I was talking about technical privileges, which are of course needed. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:40:04AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 09:35:31PM -0300, calvesmit wrote: Marc Haber, there's no need for special privileges in Debian. Nobody is or does jobs better than others. I was talking about technical privileges, which are of course needed. BTW, the long standing half-jokes about the cabal, as well as positions of various folks with important positions in debian right now, clearly demostrate that your assertions about nobody doing a better job than others and the idea of all developpers being equal, is clearly not shared by a part of DDs, and maybe this is the cause of all problems debian is passing through. There are no some sort of self-selected hierarchy, and some of those who managed to draw themselves up on the top rows of it, clearly let it go to their heads, and look down on others, who have less time to give to debian, or are less power-hungry, or whatever. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 03:21:10PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: On 10/27/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: 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. [...] References, please! The dictionaries cited so far have been oblique justification at best. Personally, I'd call an experiment that provides worthwhile information useful, worthwhile or valuable, but I'd not describe an experiment that fails to achieve a desired outcome as a successful experiment - that would be unnecessarily confusing. I feel that that the problem at the core of this subthread remains: what hypothesis can Dunc-Tank confirm or dispel? What other useful conclusion could be drawn? Only one measurement for success/failure is obvious - whether etch releases on the date forecast at the start - but Dunc-Tank is not the only influence on that, and Dunc-Tank's fillers have not agreed any measurements, or ways to measure them. I predict that we are going to get to the end of this trial and everyone is going to put forward personal opinions and anecdotes to justify whether this trial succeeded or failed, according to their prejudices. Dunc-Tank will provide little useful information. The structure of experiments is taught to teenagers as, roughly: 1. phrase your research question; 2. pick your outcome measure(s); 3. determine/select your resources and design the trial; 4. take your measurements while running the trial; 5. analyse the measurements; 6. suggest conclusions and/or further research. As far as I can tell, Dunc-Tank now is no experiment worth the name. What is critical /is/ that the design be described in sufficient detail that it can be properly evaluated. [...] Any study that is deficient in its design will rarely be able to settle the question that prompted the research, but it may be able to provide valuable information nonetheless. -- Gerard E. Dallal, Some Aspects of Study Design, in The Little Handbook of Statistical Practice, www.statisticalpractice.com Does anyone care enough to rescue the deficient Dunc-Tank design enough to provide valuable information? Can people even agree what information would be valuable? Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, what you describe is a successful experiment. In fact, the Nazis did such things with humans. Now, such things are not ethical. Thank you for your contribute, now we can consider the thread finished. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Theodore Tso wrote: Folks who are claiming that they are demotivated because two people have volunteered to give up a full month of their time to take on a job where they giving up something like 75% of their normal income --- and the problem is that they gave up only 75% instead of 100% --- those people who are kvetching should take a very deep look into their hearts and motivations. If that's what it's all about for those folks, maybe those people who have left Debian are really doing themselves (and the project) a favor... Thank you Ted. More slaps into the face really help. -- No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly to answer. -- Perl book -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Re: Anthony Towns 2006-10-27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Anthony, thank you very much for the in-depth reply, that's what I had hoped for when signing in to the statement. I'd encourage people both pro- and anti- Dunc-Tank to consider the advice of http://www.donotfeedtheenergybeast.com/ and whether continuing to publicise and debate the topic actually aids your goals. The reason I'm a bit fed up of Debian at the moment is that the flamewars on the lists has risen to a level that it is really no fun anymore. I don't specifically blame dunc-tank for that - it's rather the general way things are handled. Perhaps it is really not possible to reach consenus in a 1000+ people project, but then we should think about ways how to overcome this. Maybe we can concentrate the discussions on that? Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: night. Did I get demotivated because certain lucky folks earned bazillions and were able to buy mansions in Lake Tahoe and Chicago? No, because I know that life isn't fair, and that money wasn't why I got involved in Linux and Debian in the first place. Folks who are claiming that they are demotivated because two people have volunteered to give up a full month of their time to take on a job where they giving up something like 75% of their normal income --- and the problem is that they gave up only 75% instead of 100% --- those people who are kvetching should take a very deep look into their hearts and motivations. If that's what it's all about for those folks, maybe those people who have left Debian are really doing themselves (and the project) a favor... Thank you for expressing this so clearly, I fully agree. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
2006/10/27, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: Maybe not pay a DD to do Debian work, but pay a DD to work on the competing product. If that DD holds a job in Debian that requires special privileges, and that job is neglected without the DD in question resigning or allowing other people to do the work that he is neglecting, a loyality issue arises. Is this by any chance related to Ubuntu? Probably. I thought all Free Software projects are partners of Debian and only Proprietary software is a competitor. Regards Praveen -- Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn. -- Richard Stallman Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I, personally, do not, however, find that amount unreasonable for a one-month engagement as a contractor. If anything, it's unreasonably *low*. That's a fourth of the fair market wage for a contractor with those qualifications in the United States (and before someone points out that one could hire someone for a lower wage in a different market, please look at what country dunc-tank has funds in and look at what the feasibility would be of moving them between national jurisdictions; that sort of thing is frequently extremely complex). To compare to other free software projects, the value cited is comparable to what the FSF was offering for *salary* (which is generally lower than contractor pay due to benefit issues and social security taxes) for a sysadmin, which is a less skilled position. In other words, just as originally said, it's a wage that some people will think is way too low and some people will think is way too high. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would cash in on the free market. You're kidding, right? Others already pointed out that the original text talked about taking care of their living expenses, not contracting them. The only way for you to argue that 880 EUR would be a fair amount of money is if you consider that they are paid to do work that only these two can do. Of course in a situation like this you can write your pay check yourself, at least almost. Given a market situation with some competition the number simply is ridiculous. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: d-d-a abuse, was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, [iso-8859-2] Miros?aw Baran wrote: Please stop abusing the debian-devel-announce, this is not acceptable. I can not see any abuse of d-d-a. The mail is well thought, written in a style that is by far less offending than todays standard and has a major point concerning Debian development. If you just cannot stand the fact that the majority of the developers that happen to be interested in voting just out-voted you in regard of the Dunc-Tank, fine. Even if I'm continue to be in favour of paying DDs in critical times I'm not blind about the harm the whole affair did to Debian and I want to thank these people that they asked for kind of a journal as it is done in experiments to enable us to learn from it. My personal opinion is that the experiment is close to fail the goal of making Debian's cycle more predictable. So I'm keen on hearing an hopefully objective report from the experimentators. I admit I have underestimated the effect of a suggestion that I regarded reasonable and straightforeward in my eyes. So please stop flaming and I hope that Debian as a project is strong enough to go strengthened through this time. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Anthony Towns wrote: For the record, I haven't seen any such offers, and I've been looking for them since May or so. (Proviso: offers should be accompanied by some direct evidence that whoever's offering has the time and ability to actually do stuff) If at least any NEW queue package information was accessible, people could take an interest. If there's a problem with allowing access to the new packages themselves, cool, but there used to be at least some information on merkel.d.o's mirror of ftp.d.o (disabled for load problems for over a year[1]) and more, e.g. the .katie files if not also the whole .diff.gz and .changes - leave the orig.tar.gz and the .debs if these are problematic, could likely be made available for inspection at least for DDs. Letting people make suggestions for rejecting packages that they've found mistakes should be not very dangerous to the archive. Kind regards T. 1. I freely admit that I've not asked for it recently. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
First I will state my personal position. I think the original intent and idea of the DPL - to leverage available funds to assist the process of finishing a stable release - is a great one. Money is a tool to be used, there's no sense letting it lie around just gathering interest. The fact that one or two others might happen to be getting paid to do their Debian work does not in anyway affect my own work, it does not make me second class. My reasons for supporting Debian and free software have nothing to do with money or paid work, and they remain the same whether or not anyone else is getting paid for it. If anything I find the idea of someone else getting paid makes me more motivated, because it makes me think good, we'll be able to get more done then. On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 19:46 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was started. The freeze got delayed and getting the release out on schedule has become nearly impossible. We are unable to see any good virtue in this experiment. Now despite my support for the experiment, I agree with this summary of the results of the experiment. It seems to me that the result of the experiment is that it has revealed a profound cultural divide within the Debian project. There are two groups, and the views of the two groups in regards to the significance of money are wholly alien and antagonistic to one another. The first group, the minority, believes that any use of money to increase the time developers spend on Debian is always intrinsically a bad idea. The second group, the majority, sees, like me, that money is a tool which when available can be used to help things happen more quickly. They are not threatened by the notion of using money to increase the concentration of time that people can spend on Debian. I think the result of the experiment is that the first group has had to face just how unperturbed the second group is at the idea of using money to increase developer time, and that the second group has had to face just how antagonised the first group is over the same idea. Following from these results, my conclusion from this experiment is that, as long as the first group still exists within Debian, this kind of funding idea ought not to be repeated in the future, not in the same way. I do not believe the project gains any advantage by deliberately driving out the contributors from the first group. (There was none such deliberation in this instance, that is why is it was an experiment, to reach these conclusions.) Perhaps it is yet possible to arrive at a different funding model in the future in consensus with the first group? Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 02:44:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: Just let me pick the NEW queue: Has it been stated publicly that ftpmaster is going to reduce work spent on NEW due to dunc tank? Have ftpmaster considered to accept offers to take over some of the work load they are not motivated to do any more because they're not being paid? For the record, I haven't seen any such offers, and I've been looking for them since May or so. For the record, I haven't seen a request for help issued by ftpmaster, and ftpmaster didn't even say that the amount of time spent would be reduced by dunc tank until the position statement yesterday. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:40:24AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: If at least any NEW queue package information was accessible, people could take an interest. If there's a problem with allowing access to the new packages themselves, cool, but there used to be at least some information on merkel.d.o's mirror of ftp.d.o The packages themselves can't be made available until they've left the NEW queue. Whether on spohr or merkel, doesn't make a difference. What seems like it should be possible would be automatically running the dak examine-package tool and providing that output on a public webpage for other people to review. That currently uses neat markup that colourises things for less, so presumably isn't tremendously compatible with the web though. Presumably someone could change that if they were so enthused. (Personally, I'd consider a patch that gives examine-package a --html-output option pretty good evidence that someone's got enough m4d skillz to be made an ftpassistant, others mileage may vary) Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Hi, I'd like to thank you for putting up this email which summarize extremely well my feelings about what's happening, feelings I haven't been able to elaborate on in an email, out of disgust, despair and outrage. I'd add that the harm done by this experiment is already so huge that there's unfortunately no turning back, and it seems quite obvious that Debian will never be again what it was before, and that is very sad. I'm not very keen on plot theories, but I'd say that had somebody wanted to kill (or inflict maximum damage) to the project, he couldn't have done any better than the current DPL. This being blattant unconsciousness and irresponsability or the result of a deliberate conscious will to harm is almost the same: it is totally unacceptable. Note: this is not a personal attack. I don't know Anthony and bear no particular opinion about the guy. But I do bear special and strong opinions about what he /did/, hence the comment. On 10/26/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was started. I'm part of those. The freeze got delayed and getting the release out on schedule has become nearly impossible. We are unable to see any good virtue in this experiment. Neither do I. Having said all this and also risking yet another flamewar, let us make a last request for now: Please have a healthy discussion, let the DT people answer these questions, tell them (or us) if they (or we) made wrong assumptions or something, but please do not flame. Agreed. The above comments I made in this email are not intended to start a flame. They are mere expressions of my current thoughts, and such strong thoughts can only be expressed with strong words. Signed by: Jörg Jaspert, ftp-master assistant, DAM, DebConf Organizer Alexander Schmehl, Debian Developer, press, event manager, DebConf Organizer Alexander Wirt, Debian Developer Daniel Priem, New Maintainer Martin Würtele, Debian Developer Gerfried Fuchs, Debian Developer Patrick Jäger, User Otavio Salvador, Debian Developer Joey Schulze, Debian Developer, Security, DWN, DSA, press, promoter Felipe Augusto van de Wiel, New Maintainer Sam Hocevar, Debian Developer Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer Julien Danjou, Debian Developer, Stable Release Manager Peter Palfrader, Debian Developer Julien Blache, Debian Developer, promoter Christoph Berg, Debian Developer, QA, NM front-desk Holger Levsen, New Maintainer, DebConf Organizer I would totally have signed this letter too had I known about it earlier. I endorse everything it says. T-Bone PS: people willing to constructively interract with me can CC me on replies, as I'm not subscribed to the d-project m-l. -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Drew Parsons writes (Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment): The first group, the minority, believes that any use of money to increase the time developers spend on Debian is always intrinsically a bad idea. This an oft-repeated straw-man characterisation of dunc-tank's opponents. It's completely unsupportable; if you read Joerg's statement, it explains what the signatories feel is different about dunc-tank. Would everybody please stop repeating the straw man. (My name isn't at the bottom of the position statement, even though I agree with it, because I was too slow to respond and also because I wasn't convinced that prolonging the discussion was the right thing to do given that the nay-sayers seem to have been comprehensively outvoted. However, I cannot let this persistent mischaracterisation of our views go unchallenged.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 10:26:43AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: For the record, I haven't seen any such offers, and I've been looking for them since May or so. For the record, I haven't seen a request for help issued by ftpmaster, http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/06/msg00019.html I'm pretty sure I wrote something that went into a bit more detail about how Jeroen and Joerg demonstrated their competence prior to joining too, but I can't recall where. and ftpmaster didn't even say that the amount of time spent would be reduced by dunc tank until the position statement yesterday. That position statement is Joerg's personal opinion. Jeroen has been spending more time doing NEW processing over the past few months, eg. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Hi all, I'm posting this to d-d-a since it doesn't make sense to me to answer questions in a different forum to where they've been raised. It's already been pointed out [0] that this sort of discussion isn't appropriate for -devel-announce, so I'll try to keep it brief. Followups to -project [1], please. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00264.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00266.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00269.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00273.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00260.html Beyond this mail, I won't be posting any further about Dunc-Tank on Debian lists. Debian's lists are for improving Debian, not for discussions about other projects, and counting this mail, Dunc-Tank has had eight messages on -devel-announce, over a thousand messages in various threads on other lists, along with a large number of posts on Planet Debian. While people are free to discuss whatever they want, I personally don't think the Dunc-Tank project is that much more important than other parts of Debian to warrant such a huge focus, so I won't be a part of those discussions on Debian lists. On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: - Why were the release managers (RMs) chosen as [participants] for this experiment? There are three aspects required for funding free software in this sort of manner that line up well for release management at the moment. The first is we already have people who have been working on release management in an unpaid manner, who are able to take it on as a full time task at short notice. This avoids the difficult tasks of recruiting people with the appropriate skills and motivation, and dealing with the possibility that they may, in fact, not have the skills they claimed, or turn out not to be as interested as they thought; or having to worry about people who aren't familiar with contract work having to become familiar with it (in particular the tax and reporting requirements associated with it, and the issues of dealing with the risks associated with not having any employment benefits, paid vacations or sick leave, or a reliable salary and requirements that your employer give notice before you have to go job hunting). The second is that as a task, release management has a defined end point, with the release of etch giving a very clear point at which we can stop funding people and work out what to do next, without risking any harm to the release process in general, since the release team are expecting to take a break after etch is out anyway. In addition, release management work becomes significantly more effort as the release date approaches, which makes a time-limited experiment at the end of the release cycle make much more sense than a similar experiment would on a task that needs to continue on an ongoing basis, such as security support or development of packages in unstable. The third is that release management is widely recognised as an important and timely issue for Debian by our users at the moment. That's important not only in and of itself, but it also makes it more likely that users will be willing to say I can't help fix any of the bugs and I don't have any time to do testing and such, but I'd be happy to donate some money on this, because I think it's important. There are likely other projects where all of those aspects apply, but in my opinion, right now, release management is the one where they apply best. There are several areas within the Debian project that we consider equally important and full-time work there could benefit the project way more. Dunc-Tank is operating through the Public Software Fund [2], which allows people to fund any free software development activities through donations (which are tax deductible in the US), so there's absolutely nothing stopping any of those projects being funded in the same way. To the best of my knowledge, no one has asked for support from either myself (as DPL) or the Dunc-Tank board or given details of other such projects or how funding would help them. [2] http://www.pubsoft.org/ https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/how-funding https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/philosophy https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/determination - What exactly are the release managers being paid for? There surely must be more than a simple Stay at home, work on Debian in their contract. They're not required to stay at home. :) The principles we're using for Steve's work primarily relies on mutual trust rather than nailing down too many details: (1) Steve will work full-time on release management tasks for etch, beginning Thursday 12th October, ending Monday 13th November. Full-time is intended to be equivalent to at least 8-10 hours per day, 5 days per week to the
Re: Response to Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
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 fuck is this definition of successful??! 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). T-Bone PS: I won't annoy anyone with further emails, this was the last one, so no need to send me please stop being an arse and the like. -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:40:24AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: For the record, I haven't seen any such offers, and I've been looking for them since May or so. (Proviso: offers should be accompanied by some direct evidence that whoever's offering has the time and ability to actually do stuff) If at least any NEW queue package information was accessible, people could take an interest. If there's a problem with allowing access to the new packages themselves, cool, but there used to be at least some information on merkel.d.o's mirror of ftp.d.o (disabled for load problems for over a year[1]) and more, e.g. the .katie files if not also the whole .diff.gz and .changes - leave the orig.tar.gz and the .debs if these are problematic, could likely be made available for inspection at least for DDs. Letting people make suggestions for rejecting packages that they've found mistakes should be not very dangerous to the archive. BTW, maybe one cool solution would be to make all NEW packages available, not to the outside world, but behind some DD-access only area of some kind. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Signed by: Jörg Jaspert, ftp-master assistant, DAM, DebConf Organizer Alexander Schmehl, Debian Developer, press, event manager, DebConf Organizer Alexander Wirt, Debian Developer Daniel Priem, New Maintainer Martin Würtele, Debian Developer Gerfried Fuchs, Debian Developer Patrick Jäger, User Otavio Salvador, Debian Developer Joey Schulze, Debian Developer, Security, DWN, DSA, press, promoter Felipe Augusto van de Wiel, New Maintainer Sam Hocevar, Debian Developer Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer Julien Danjou, Debian Developer, Stable Release Manager Peter Palfrader, Debian Developer Julien Blache, Debian Developer, promoter Christoph Berg, Debian Developer, QA, NM front-desk Holger Levsen, New Maintainer, DebConf Organizer If I'd have been aware of this letter before, I'd have asked to be in that list. I fully agree with what Jörg wrote. Mike Hommey, Debian Developer, Mozilla® hater. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Hi, After a long and ambivalent discussion during the last weeks the project Dunc Tank (short DT from now on) has recently started. We consider that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a institution so near to the project itself. While we disagree with DT for the reasons outlined below, we want to state that this is not against the two people who should now benefit From it. We do trust Andreas and Steve that they do the best they can and only intend to do something good for Debian. With this mail we would like to summarize our thoughts about the DT project and the idea behind it. We also want to raise some questions we still consider unanswered and open: - Why were the release managers (RMs) chosen as beneficiary for this experiment? There are several areas within the Debian project that we consider equally important and full-time work there could benefit the project way more. Especially since it is clear now that we currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying our RMs. - What exactly are the release managers being paid for? There surely must be more than a simple Stay at home, work on Debian in their contract. - How does DT want to know whether the release managers stick to their part of the agreement? - How is the success of this experiment measured? (For the release as well as for the entire project) - How do these measurements make sure that the observed consequences are based on the experiment? - How is it planned or is it even possible to compare the consequences of the experiment with a state of the project without this experiment? - What actions have been taken to ensure that potential negative outcomes of the experiment won't affect the Debian project? - Has it taken into account that several developers who have spent large chunks of time on Debian before got demotivated to continue their work? - How do these measurements try to compare positive and negative effects on the release as well as the Debian project itself? - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it was said that it is providing a reasonable amount of money to cover living expenses and later on, that this is below the average they could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to be neither just living costs nor below average, not even by applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds has this amount been calculated? [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm Although DT claims to be separate from Debian, we still feel that we are entitled to an answer to our questions, since after all, we are the people DT is experimenting with! After this set of questions let us comment on DT and present our opinion about statements made by DT supporters and board members. One claim of the DT people is that this is only an experiment. Yet this whole affair already hurts Debian more than it can ever achieve. It already made a lot of people who have contributed a huge amount of time and work to Debian reduce their work. People left the project, others are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all the listed points are explicitly due to DT. Compared to possible benefits one may see - e.g. releasing near a time we promised to release at - in our opinion this is not worth the trouble DT already got us in. Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other project members. This creates a set of two uber-DDs, in contrast to all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose work seems to be considered less important for Debian. It is ridiculous to set a deadline and then to create a project to pay those two people who set the deadline, but ignore the huge amount of work other people put into Debian. It is not as if those two Release Managers are now doing all the work that needs to be done, it is expected that they go and direct other people to do the work for the release. So why don't we pay all of them also? Aren't they worth the money? Another statement we heard repeatedly from DT supporters is that DT is a separate project and not Debian. We do think that this is, at best, a joke. The DT board consists solely of the current Debian Project Leader, his assistant and other high-profile Debian Developers, working on a Debian related project. This simply
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion only. On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Especially since it is clear now that we currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying our RMs. Is that clear? - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it was said that it is providing a reasonable amount of money to cover living expenses and later on, that this is below the average they could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to be neither just living costs nor below average, not even by applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds has this amount been calculated? US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would cash in on the free market. People left the project, others are orphaning packages, the NEW queue is rising, system administration and security work is reduced, DWN is no longer released weekly and a lot of otherwise silent maintainers simply put off Debian work and work on something else. While some of these actions simply tend to happen, all the listed points are explicitly due to DT. Just let me pick the NEW queue: Has it been stated publicly that ftpmaster is going to reduce work spent on NEW due to dunc tank? Have ftpmaster considered to accept offers to take over some of the work load they are not motivated to do any more because they're not being paid? Another bad feeling introduced by DT is that of a two-class project. Until DT, Debian has been a completely volunteer-based project. Today there are two paid Release Managers, opposed to all other project members. This creates a set of two uber-DDs, in contrast to all the other nearly 1000 Developers and many more maintainers, whose work seems to be considered less important for Debian. Actually, personally, I do feel more threatened by uber-DDs that happen to be in power of ftp, system administration and other key positions in Debian. Especially by the uber-DDs that are being paid by a direct competitor. If people need to be paid, I'd like them (1) to be paid by the project (2) to be paid by something friendly to the project (3) to be paid by a competitor I know of more DDs that (3) applies than of DDs that (2) applies. And unfortunately, no DD that (1) applies to. Another statement we heard repeatedly from DT supporters is that DT is a separate project and not Debian. We do think that this is, at best, a joke. The DT board consists solely of the current Debian Project Leader, his assistant and other high-profile Debian Developers, working on a Debian related project. This simply can't be seen as something separated From Debian and the public has already proven that it doesn't consider it a totally separate project. I fully agree here. So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was started. At this place, one of our worst problems surfaces again: People stop working _silently_ so that nobody can step in for them. And, even worse, people in key positions (that need special privileges do work) reduce their committment without stepping down, actively _prevent_ other people from doing their work. _THIS_ is doing _BIG_ harm to the project. Jörg Jaspert, ftp-master assistant, DAM, DebConf Organizer Alexander Schmehl, Debian Developer, press, event manager, DebConf Organizer Alexander Wirt, Debian Developer Daniel Priem, New Maintainer Martin Würtele, Debian Developer Gerfried Fuchs, Debian Developer Patrick Jäger, User Otavio Salvador, Debian Developer Joey Schulze, Debian Developer, Security, DWN, DSA, press, promoter Felipe Augusto van de Wiel, New Maintainer Sam Hocevar, Debian Developer Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer Julien Danjou, Debian Developer, Stable Release Manager Peter Palfrader, Debian Developer Julien Blache, Debian Developer, promoter Christoph Berg, Debian Developer, QA, NM front-desk Holger Levsen, New Maintainer, DebConf Organizer I'd like to know if these are the jobs that used to be done, or the jobs that you guys intend to continue doing. Of course, I am especially interested in that information for the jobs that need special privileges, such as release manager, press, DWN, DSA, Security, ftpmaster and/or DAM. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Thanks for the mail-in-depth On 10/26/06, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ snip ] Joey Schulze: [5] Debian is a failure This is misrepresentation don't you think? Joey didn't say that Debian is a failure. That's just the title of the blog. [5] http://www.infodrom.org/~joey/log/?200609210757 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
Joerg Jaspert wrote: - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it was said that it is providing a reasonable amount of money to cover living expenses and later on, that this is below the average they could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to be neither just living costs nor below average, not even by applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds has this amount been calculated? [1] https://www.pubsoft.org/pubsoft.py/project?proj=Dunc-Tank-etch-rm Hi all, I agree, this is not below average or otherwise. Average is calculated on a GDP per capita. For US [1][2], that is (in millions) $13,469,000/300 = $44896 per capita = $3741.39/month per person. This is roughly in agreement with government statistics [3], and I quote, Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four census regions — Northeast ($46,742), Midwest ($44,732) and West ($46,820). The exception was the South, where income declined 1.5 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median household income of all four regions ($39,823) True, one has to adjust for inflation, but inflation in the US is 2% so the numbers are relatively correct. I think the mean is something about $50k now so ~$4000/mo/person in the *rich* areas. Thus at $6000 and assuming my calculation is correct, this is 60% more than the average salary in the US hence not below average or just living costs. Speaking naively (since the average doesn't follow the standard distribution, but let's assume it does), 50% of the people live in the US on *less* than $3741/mo/person. Now, my numbers may be wrong a little bit, although in the ballpark and they do agree with the notion that $6000/mo/person is 'neither just living costs nor below average'. Yes, I know that wages depend on location. And they do fluctuate from place to place, but the mean wage is about the same within +-10k. Yes, even in NY $72000/year is more than just getting by or below average. - Adam PS. To myself, the experiment has failed as more than a few DDs are not happy with it and some have quit. There is *no way* that one or two people, paid or not, can replace that manpower. Therefore the experiment has failed as it will result in less work per unit time being done. ref: [1] - http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm for Nov 2006. [2] - population at 300 million (see all recent news, etc..) [3] - http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html [4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beta_distribution_pdf.png -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
d-d-a abuse, was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
[Joerg Jaspert pisze na temat Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment]: Dear authors of the position statement (whoever position it states), Please stop abusing the debian-devel-announce, this is not acceptable. If you just cannot stand the fact that the majority of the developers that happen to be interested in voting just out-voted you in regard of the Dunc-Tank, fine. There are various places that can be used for discussion in Debian. DEBIAN-DEVEL-ANNOUNCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT ONE OF THEM. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ABUSING THE DEBIAN-DEVEL-ANNOUNCE MAILING LIST. (And a ftpmaster and an AM should know better, really). On a side note, the author of this mail, slightly misquoting one Texan judge, simply wants to scream to authors of the 'position statement', Get a life or Do you have any other problems? or When is the last time you registered for anger management classes? Sincerely yours Miroslaw Baran (Jubal) -- [ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ] [ BOF2510053411, http://hell.pl/baran/tek/, alchemy pany! ] [ The Answer ] Half Moon tonight. (At least it's better than no Moon at all.) pgpGV35KxWvV4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:37:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: This is going to be a personal reply, containing my personal opinion only. On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Especially since it is clear now that we currently can not keep the scheduled release date, even with DT paying our RMs. Is that clear? based on [1] I'd say that yes it is. Even if we consider that the people we are now work twice as fast (because twice as many) as for sarge, we have right noe 260 RC bugs, sarge was at 125 6 months before it was released. and at 250+ 1 year before its release. - During the discussion before the experiment it was said that the living costs of the release managers are to be paid. Additionally it was said that it is providing a reasonable amount of money to cover living expenses and later on, that this is below the average they could get elsewhere. However, the official donation site[1] mentions US$ 6000.00 for each release manager. We do consider this to be neither just living costs nor below average, not even by applying common taxes and insurances one has to pay. On what grounds has this amount been calculated? US$ 6000 is like 4.800 EUR. That's like a dayly rate of 220 EUR. Like a fourth of what a contractor of Andi's and Steve's expertise would cash in on the free market. but that's was not a salary, at least, it was what has been promised to us. That's supposed to pay their living expenses, and please, do me a favor, I earn *really* less than that, and I'm able to pay a mortgage and live well. So, to summarize DTs effects on Debian: It has demotivated a lot of people who now either resigned, simply stopped doing (parts of their) Debian work or are doing a lot less than they did before DT was started. At this place, one of our worst problems surfaces again: People stop working _silently_ so that nobody can step in for them. And, even worse, people in key positions (that need special privileges do work) reduce their committment without stepping down, actively _prevent_ other people from doing their work. _THIS_ is doing _BIG_ harm to the project. I'm not aware of any key role beeing held hostage because of people that are fed up with DT. But I may be mistaken. Please enlight me. What happens though, is that key people that have unvaluable knowledges and skills have left. We lost a valuable libpng maintainer, we lost a guy that understood how timezones worked, how xkb worked, and a valuable l10n team member, a weekly DWN, etc… Some of those places are vacant because there is simply nobody else to fill the gaps. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpO2nNaWo7W5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:45:11PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: Thus at $6000 and assuming my calculation is correct, this is 60% more than the average salary in the US hence not below average or just living costs. Speaking naively (since the average doesn't follow the standard distribution, but let's assume it does), 50% of the people live in the US on *less* than $3741/mo/person. Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this list are not aware of these differences. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 10:12:09PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Marc Haber: Please note that this is not a salary which can be relied on coming in month after months. Freelance people which high qualifications have to calculate differently. I am actually surprised that people on this list are not aware of these differences. You make this sound as if the RMs had come up with the $6,000 figure, which isn't true AFAIK. Sorry, that was not my intention. I do not know where that figure originated. I, personally, do not, however, find that amount unreasonable for a one-month engagement as a contractor. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: misleading use of d-d-a (was Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment)
Andrew Pollock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [lengthy whinge snipped] Funny. Looks to me like some valid unanswered questions were snipped, some of which were asked right back near when this effort was first mentioned. I think it's uncool to be sending emails to d-d-a with position statement in the subject that aren't indicative of a position statement of the project. The signatories are clearly named. It is their position and whatever the position of the project is has little to do with it. We've had not one, but two GRs recently, which came out supporting what aj's doing. If anything, one could draw from these results that the position statement of the project is exact opposite to what you've put forward on d-d-a. Options in the two GRs were split between ballots and some options were missing, making it a sequence of black-white fights instead of a resolution process, but I also doubt the majority would support the recently-posted position. Way to send conflicting messages to the public. The developers have conflicting views. Anyone expecting this to look neat to the public when we will not hide problems is a key general aim should take a reality check. [...] For the record, the constant bitching and moaning is demotivating me more than anything else. So stop bitching and moaning at the developers who have posted their views and try to resolve this problem! If you don't like what's going on, remember it's only an experiment, and after the experiment is done, raise whatever GRs are necessary to make sure it can never happen again. How? This is for real, not an experiment - we can't turn back the clock if it breaks the project. It trades on debian's goodwill, yet is outside our agreements. The only GRs which can be raised to make sure it can never happen again are so harsh (like making some non-debian actions incompatible with being DPL) that they seem unlikely to pass. So, as there seems no hope of making progress through the usual channels, I fully support these direct action tactics currently being used, even if I don't share all of the concerns. The Dunc-Tank board should start negotiating (as they should have done much earlier), but at least two of them have a history of troublesome inertia. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Position Statement to the Dunc-Tanc experiment
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: that to be a major change to the Debian project culture: For the first time Debian Developers are paid for their work on Debian by a institution so near to the project itself. This is completely and blatantly false! The only thing that's different this time is the prominence of the developers involved relative to the prominence of the institution, and the amount of publicity that has ensued. (And, unlike _some_, but not all, previous cases, the initial goal of the institution is to improve Debian rather than to fork it. And in at least one earlier case, the goal changed from forking to improving after the initial fork proved unsuccessful.) Unless you want to try to audit every Debian developer, you simply cannot make blanket statements about how and when developers are paid to work on Debian, and by whom. (And such an audit would be illegal and unethical in any country I know of, and might not yield the relevant details in any case.) -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
