Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:25:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 06:18:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I don't think that's the best way forward. I see three common uses of the debian.net namespace: - As a testing playground for services which intend to eventually be integrated into debian.org. - People who use it as some sort of personal playground or personal mail domain or similar things. I'm not sure this should be allowed at all (and most people would seem to agree), but it is happening. - As a name for a default setting in a webbrowser (default home page), collaboration tool (e.g., gobby could default to gobby.debian.net), default server for a Debian-packaged game (tetrinet.debian.net), download URL for installer packages in non-free (I believe flashplugin-nonfree uses a debian.net URL to download the flash plugin, but could be mistaken), or similar things. Calling stuff in the first category in incubation stage would seem to be reasonable, as would banning the second category. I don't think there's anything at all reasonable about banning the second category. This is historically a large part of what the debian.net domain was *for*. It's a perk of being a member of the Debian project, which hurts no one. We should be happy that developers are proud enough of being members of Debian to advertise it in their domain usage, instead of trying to suppress the usage for fear that it will tarnish Debian's reputation. Right. Let me clarify: I'm not advocating banning that use of the debian.net domain, but I'm not strictly opposed to it either if it's decided that that's what needs to be done. In other words, banning that is something that, IMO, is open to discussion. The third category isn't, though. If there are uses of the .debian.net domain that reflect poorly on Debian, let those be taken up with the individuals responsible. I think it's silly to try to impose a policy on this domain because end users can't keep the domains straight. As long as developers are taking appropriate care not to confuse our users about the status, I don't see the problem; and if developers aren't taking appropriate care, that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - escalating to the DAM if necessary. That's probably a more reasonable approach than just banning outright, indeed. But I don't think running a game server as a service to Debian users is something DSA should do (so it's not strictly in incubation), nor that it should be considered bad usage of the debian.net domain; and changing those to include a DD name in the URL would require an update of a package in stable if the person who used to maintain it is now no longer interested in running that service, the avoidance of which probably being the main reason why you'd want to be using a debian.net URL. Yes. Moving either pioneers.debian.net or pdx.debian.net to a login-specific subdomain would defeat the purpose of having them at all. Exactly. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120702185318.gd23...@grep.be
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:58:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:01:56PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking comments on a proposal to alter this practice. Thanks for working on the idea! Here are a few comments of mine: - I like very much the idea of thinking at *.debian.net entries as services in incubation. It is way clearer than our current notion of official vs non-official (hosting), which is something that people who have no idea what DSA is simply cannot understand. Additionally, it bring purpose to debian.net entries as something temporary that should at least ideally strive to move to debian.org. Not because our DSAs are control freak (they're not), but rather because debian.org hosting gives more guarantees to the Debian Project of long term maintenance, usually because it reduces the bus factor risk. Making this even clearer with a *.incubator.debian.org namespace might be a good idea. (Modulo some transition time, doing so will eventually replace *.debian.net, if I got that right.) I don't think that's the best way forward. I see three common uses of the debian.net namespace: - As a testing playground for services which intend to eventually be integrated into debian.org. - People who use it as some sort of personal playground or personal mail domain or similar things. I'm not sure this should be allowed at all (and most people would seem to agree), but it is happening. - As a name for a default setting in a webbrowser (default home page), collaboration tool (e.g., gobby could default to gobby.debian.net), default server for a Debian-packaged game (tetrinet.debian.net), download URL for installer packages in non-free (I believe flashplugin-nonfree uses a debian.net URL to download the flash plugin, but could be mistaken), or similar things. Calling stuff in the first category in incubation stage would seem to be reasonable, as would banning the second category. But I don't think running a game server as a service to Debian users is something DSA should do (so it's not strictly in incubation), nor that it should be considered bad usage of the debian.net domain; and changing those to include a DD name in the URL would require an update of a package in stable if the person who used to maintain it is now no longer interested in running that service, the avoidance of which probably being the main reason why you'd want to be using a debian.net URL. So while I do agree that there are problems with the current usage of the debian.net domain, I'm not sure it's solved by changing the domain. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120629161815.go10...@grep.be
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 06:18:15PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I don't think that's the best way forward. I see three common uses of the debian.net namespace: - As a testing playground for services which intend to eventually be integrated into debian.org. - People who use it as some sort of personal playground or personal mail domain or similar things. I'm not sure this should be allowed at all (and most people would seem to agree), but it is happening. - As a name for a default setting in a webbrowser (default home page), collaboration tool (e.g., gobby could default to gobby.debian.net), default server for a Debian-packaged game (tetrinet.debian.net), download URL for installer packages in non-free (I believe flashplugin-nonfree uses a debian.net URL to download the flash plugin, but could be mistaken), or similar things. Calling stuff in the first category in incubation stage would seem to be reasonable, as would banning the second category. I don't think there's anything at all reasonable about banning the second category. This is historically a large part of what the debian.net domain was *for*. It's a perk of being a member of the Debian project, which hurts no one. We should be happy that developers are proud enough of being members of Debian to advertise it in their domain usage, instead of trying to suppress the usage for fear that it will tarnish Debian's reputation. If there are uses of the .debian.net domain that reflect poorly on Debian, let those be taken up with the individuals responsible. I think it's silly to try to impose a policy on this domain because end users can't keep the domains straight. As long as developers are taking appropriate care not to confuse our users about the status, I don't see the problem; and if developers aren't taking appropriate care, that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - escalating to the DAM if necessary. But I don't think running a game server as a service to Debian users is something DSA should do (so it's not strictly in incubation), nor that it should be considered bad usage of the debian.net domain; and changing those to include a DD name in the URL would require an update of a package in stable if the person who used to maintain it is now no longer interested in running that service, the avoidance of which probably being the main reason why you'd want to be using a debian.net URL. Yes. Moving either pioneers.debian.net or pdx.debian.net to a login-specific subdomain would defeat the purpose of having them at all. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Re: Stefano Zacchiroli 2012-06-25 20120625165835.gb20...@upsilon.cc Making this even clearer with a *.incubator.debian.org namespace might be a good idea. (Modulo some transition time, doing so will eventually replace *.debian.net, if I got that right.) - I've already discussed in a related thread of a few months ago how I think the current distinction between debian.net and debian.org should be documented, incidentally resolving other visibility problems of those services. Not that the dnsZoneEntry LDAP entry is publicly available, we should have an automated generated index of debian.net services, with pointers to the responsible DD. I think it'd be a good idea to have such index live at http://www.debian.net together with an explanation of the debian.net/.org distinction. I don't think *this part* of the confusion is enough to justify changes of the current scheme (but see below for another possible reason). I agree that debian.net and debian.org are a tad too similar such that an outsider can clearly see that the former is in incubation, but that's what we have at the moment, and I'd rather not replace it by something more ugly. Let's just document it more prominently. Maybe .debian.net owners should be encouraged to put a note on the website, or something like that. Generally speaking, every time we add an approval step I start to fear bottlenecks and the creation of new mighty powers; avoiding that is one of the key advantages of the current scheme. If the main problem .debian.net is very useful in that it enables DDs to get things done. Let's not put in more bureaucracy in front of it. is squatting, then I see two possible solutions: 1) be liberal by default, but empower someone to decide that a name is not acceptable. I think DSA would be a reasonable choice, as you already decide on *.debian.org, but I suspect DSA would not want to have this veto power (choice which I respect) Afaict there's no written rule that says don't put your private homepage there or similar. Actually should be useful for Debian should be enough of a rule. With that, someone can slap the offenders, e.g. DSA or DAM. 2) find some clear cut rule. One I've proposed in the past is that for any *.debian.org entry, the corresponding *.debian.net should not exist (or point to the debian.org ones, depending on the protocol). This one will still give some sort of veto power to DSA, but it will come with the factual justification of an existing homonymous service I've seen .debian.net used for testing .debian.org services, but that's mostly confusing to users. I wouldn't put in an official must not exist rule there, but an should not exist or redirect to debian.org makes sense. Btw, what would actually be an improvement would be shared debian.net entries, i.e. entries that anyone can edit. (Maybe that should even be the default.) Christoph -- c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: - I've already discussed in a related thread of a few months ago how I think the current distinction between debian.net and debian.org should be documented, incidentally resolving other visibility problems of those services. Not that the dnsZoneEntry LDAP entry is publicly available, we should have an automated generated index of debian.net services, with pointers to the responsible DD. I think it'd be a good idea to have such index live at http://www.debian.net together with an explanation of the debian.net/.org distinction. I don't think *this part* of the confusion is enough to justify changes of the current scheme (but see below for another possible reason). Stuart Prescott (Cc:-ed) has already drafted an implementation of the index generation and I've encouraged him to submit it as a wishlist bug report + patch to the -www team a few weeks ago. Stuart: any news on that front? (I can't check if the bug report is on right now due to shaky mobile phone connection.) I discussed my draft implementation in #debian-www a week or so ago. For those who are curious, the debian.net list and page I put together can be viewed at: http://ircbots.debian.net/misc/debiandotnet (that URL just being a tmpdir on a machine with the right CSS and image files in the right places for the debian theme) The reaction from #debian-www was underwhelming. * there was a suggestion to move this somewhere under /devel instead. That's easy to do, but these are resources for both users and developers, so that doesn't necessarily improve things. * there was a suggestion that DSA should generate this directly and include it on db.debian.org. I've not talked to DSA about this idea but would happily help them do that if they wanted. * the demo page includes the description from the existing wiki page [1] and a description of the domain seems like a sensible thing to have. Any TXT records that have been defined in LDAP for a domain are also used for the descriptions. Since TXT records can't be defined for CNAME entries, I can't see a good way of allowing the domain owner of a CNAME to provide or update a description, unless LDAP were to carry TXT records for CNAMEs for documentation purposes but ignore them when generating the zone file. [2] And that's where everything ground to a halt. Suggestions welcome. FWIW, I feel that the multilevel debian.net proposal that is discussed in this thread is overly bureaucratic; debian.net is currently the bazaar and trying to turn it into the cathedral seems wrong. It also pushes existing valuable resources like ircbots.debian.net and mentors.debian.net into a fringe where there is no team to bless them and yet they are also not in any incubator. cheers Stuart [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianNetDomains [2] Previous suggestions in this thread to use TXT records to find out who owns the domain (dig +short -ttxt love.debian.net) also fail for records that are CNAME records rather than A records for example, dig +short -ttxt x.debian.net. 50% of all the debian.net records are CNAME not A so this method works half the time... Maybe we should publish a list of domain owners on the web? - -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/qYDgACgkQn+i4zXHF0ajzlgCdHcQOOS1aPlPIG1fHq+xx54VE IYEAn3BXov1wGlc5boVdnko0YyINkzfs =I0IK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jsdn82$dgl$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, June 22, 2012 23:01, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: There is nothing carved into stone yet! I just want to hear your comments on this. The key point is that lay users will not understand the difference between debian.net and debian.org, and we should not require that they do. The purpose of this RFC is to seek comment on how to address this concern and the above proposal is perhaps one such way. I'm not clear why it is problematic that lay users do not know the difference between 'official' and 'unofficial' services. Take mentors.debian.net, perhaps the most visible debian.net service. How is it relevant to lay users whether or not this service is officially blessed? It works great for all parties involved. Whether or not it's blessed is mostly a project internal issue. The Debian security tracker has been on debian.net for years. It has been the canonical tool for anyone working on security issues in Debian. No problem there. (I do see why we want to run important stuff on DSA infrasturcture. But that is a project internal issue and does not really matter for outsiders to decide.) There's a selection procedure for DD's, because we want to be able to trust them to not do weird things when they post with their 'official' debian.org email address, or when they upload any package into the archive. If we can trust them with that, I think we can also trust them to run services in a reasonable manner, or at least not so unreasonable that it's necessary to put big warning signs on them. The outside world does not really care about the difference between debian.org and debian.net, but I do not perceive that as a problem. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/bbc3715a8049916dfa382b7399a5772b.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On 06/25/2012 09:46 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Fri, June 22, 2012 23:01, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: There is nothing carved into stone yet! I just want to hear your comments on this. The key point is that lay users will not understand the difference between debian.net and debian.org, and we should not require that they do. The purpose of this RFC is to seek comment on how to address this concern and the above proposal is perhaps one such way. I'm not clear why it is problematic that lay users do not know the difference between 'official' and 'unofficial' services. Take mentors.debian.net, perhaps the most visible debian.net service. How is it relevant to lay users whether or not this service is officially blessed? It works great for all parties involved. Whether or not it's blessed is mostly a project internal issue. mentors is a special case here as it might distribute non-distributable stuff when people upload buggy packages. So there is no real way to run this as official Debian service imho. [...] -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fe87d37.9050...@bzed.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:01:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
mentors is a special case here as it might distribute non-distributable
stuff when people upload buggy packages. So there is no real way to run
this as official Debian service imho.
Let's avoid spreading this myth. The above is not true or, better, it's
not *necessarily* true. As I've reported about in the past, I'm working
with current maintainers of mentors.d.n and the lawyers we've access to,
to fix this. It's still work in progress, but it looks like that with
appropriate policies / terms of use documents, we *might* be able to
host the mentors service on Debian hardware without endangering the
organizations that legally owns or run it.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On 06/25/2012 05:39 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:01:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: mentors is a special case here as it might distribute non-distributable stuff when people upload buggy packages. So there is no real way to run this as official Debian service imho. Let's avoid spreading this myth. The above is not true or, better, it's not *necessarily* true. As I've reported about in the past, I'm working with current maintainers of mentors.d.n and the lawyers we've access to, to fix this. It's still work in progress, but it looks like that with appropriate policies / terms of use documents, we *might* be able to host the mentors service on Debian hardware without endangering the organizations that legally owns or run it. So until these policies and whatever else is needed is in place there is no way to run this as an official service. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fe88ddb.5050...@bzed.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 06/25/2012 09:46 AM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Take mentors.debian.net, perhaps the most visible debian.net service. How is it relevant to lay users whether or not this service is officially blessed? It works great for all parties involved. Whether or not it's blessed is mostly a project internal issue. mentors is a special case here as it might distribute non-distributable stuff when people upload buggy packages. So there is no real way to run this as official Debian service imho. And how (whether true or not) does that make any difference to Thijs' argument? This message is not meant to feed anything. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jsa2vt$u7g$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:12:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
So until these policies and whatever else is needed is in place there
is no way to run this as an official service.
That is correct, yes.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:01:56PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly
entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking
comments on a proposal to alter this practice.
Thanks for working on the idea!
Here are a few comments of mine:
- I like very much the idea of thinking at *.debian.net entries as
services in incubation. It is way clearer than our current notion of
official vs non-official (hosting), which is something that people
who have no idea what DSA is simply cannot understand. Additionally,
it bring purpose to debian.net entries as something temporary that
should at least ideally strive to move to debian.org. Not because our
DSAs are control freak (they're not), but rather because debian.org
hosting gives more guarantees to the Debian Project of long term
maintenance, usually because it reduces the bus factor risk.
Making this even clearer with a *.incubator.debian.org namespace might
be a good idea. (Modulo some transition time, doing so will eventually
replace *.debian.net, if I got that right.)
- I've already discussed in a related thread of a few months ago how I
think the current distinction between debian.net and debian.org should
be documented, incidentally resolving other visibility problems of
those services. Not that the dnsZoneEntry LDAP entry is publicly
available, we should have an automated generated index of debian.net
services, with pointers to the responsible DD. I think it'd be a good
idea to have such index live at http://www.debian.net together with an
explanation of the debian.net/.org distinction. I don't think *this
part* of the confusion is enough to justify changes of the current
scheme (but see below for another possible reason).
Stuart Prescott (Cc:-ed) has already drafted an implementation of the
index generation and I've encouraged him to submit it as a wishlist
bug report + patch to the -www team a few weeks ago. Stuart: any news
on that front? (I can't check if the bug report is on right now due to
shaky mobile phone connection.)
- Regarding *.$user.debian.net vs *.debian.net, I think both have value.
The former might be useful for DDs that want to offer some kind of
service, but explicitly want to avoid polluting a namespace that
makes services *look* somehow blessed by the Debian Project. That is
an attitude we should cherish and support. If we go for the
incubation principle, it will also be useful to explicitly mark which
services are /not/ in incubation, but only personal hacks that will be
perceived as less stable.
The latter (*.debian.net) is important for the opposite reason:
explicitly communicate that a service is somewhat tied to the Debian
Project, even though not officially hosted on its infrastructure
(yet). Unfortunately, your proposal is silent on who/how will decide
when a *.debian.net entries is acceptable or not. It's hard to comment
on that :-), but I think it's crucial to have a proposal about it
before deciding on the more general scheme you're proposing.
Generally speaking, every time we add an approval step I start to fear
bottlenecks and the creation of new mighty powers; avoiding that is
one of the key advantages of the current scheme. If the main problem
is squatting, then I see two possible solutions:
1) be liberal by default, but empower someone to decide that a name is
not acceptable. I think DSA would be a reasonable choice, as you
already decide on *.debian.org, but I suspect DSA would not want to
have this veto power (choice which I respect)
2) find some clear cut rule. One I've proposed in the past is that for
any *.debian.org entry, the corresponding *.debian.net should not
exist (or point to the debian.org ones, depending on the protocol).
This one will still give some sort of veto power to DSA, but it
will come with the factual justification of an existing homonymous
service
Technically, I also fear the collisions between *.$user.debian.net and
*.debian.net: the latter is open ended, as well as the user namespace
in Debian.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Montag, 25. Juni 2012, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: mentors is a special case here as it might distribute non-distributable stuff when people upload buggy packages. So there is no real way to run this as official Debian service imho. as if we would never distribute non-distributable stuff via ftp.debian.org... and as if Debian would not be allowed to make mistakes... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206251314.29408.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On 06/23/2012 10:21 PM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: I have spoken to quite a lot of lay users, none of them knew the difference between debian.net and debian.org. The fact that debian.net redirects to www.debian.org really doesn't help users to get the difference. IMHO, debian.net's webpage should have clear and bold warning that all *.debian.net subdomains are not official services. IMHO, like others said, the new proposal looks horrible. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fe6c6f2.5070...@dogguy.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:01:56PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: While the current practice is useful for the introduction of unofficial project services, it may involve certain risks. One risk is that outsiders can not and will not distinguish between debian.net and debian.org entries. Another risk is that those unofficial services will stall if the maintainer who 'owns' those entries leaves the project. We are also observing domain-squatting in the debian.net zone. I like the reasons behind it but not the result. The problems you mentioned are real and need to be addressed. Whatever the domain or subdomain is, it should be clearly marked with some message on both the top level part (eg debian.net/www.debian.net) as well as the child sites with some sort of message. Maybe even something generated to say who is responsible for what subdomain (yes I know dig tells you, but the website could too!) If debian.net is too close to debian.org then I would suggest using a different domain rather than sub-subdomains. Other projects do have this difference, wordpress being one. People will get confused no matter what you do. I quite like the debian.net idea and what has come out of it. If the policy is weak, then I'd say tweak the policy. I'm not in favour of these large chain of domains, maybe I'm a lazy typer. In short: * If domain-squatting is a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If inappropriate content is a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If dead projects are a problem, make the policy define and ban it * If people go to website xyz.debian.org and you think they wont understand its not from the real debian, make the policy define what must be put on that site to reduce the confusion The thing that is banned/defined must be objective and must be around what could damage Debian, not what some people think is a waste of time. love.d.n is a perfect example, I liked it as did others, some probably did not; but in any case I don't think it should be banned. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624085007.gb26...@enc.com.au
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi! * Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org [2012-06-22 23:01:56 CEST]: The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking comments on a proposal to alter this practice. In theory I agree that the policy change makes much sense. Practically though it will cause some trouble for a decision I took years ago (2004): In absence of a better solution at that time, for the xblast project, we settled to use xblast.debian.net as the central server for network games which is set within the code. The development of xblast has rather ceased, and the community is quite reduced, existing only of occational players, it shouldn't have *that* deep impact. It though will require new releases to change it, also for stable, and for people to notice that there is a new version out there to download it (announcing the changed central server on the mailinglist and website will of course be done). I don't ask for an exception here, but there will be plenty of work ahead of the xblast project to fix this. And I do not deny that it was a bad design decision, but I can't change the past, only the future. Thanks, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624112407.ga4...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Sun Jun 24, 2012 at 13:24:07 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Hi! * Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org [2012-06-22 23:01:56 CEST]: The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking comments on a proposal to alter this practice. In theory I agree that the policy change makes much sense. Practically though it will cause some trouble for a decision I took years ago (2004): In absence of a better solution at that time, for the xblast project, we settled to use xblast.debian.net as the central server for network games which is set within the code. i am quite aware that we can't change the debian.net policy overnight. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624150025.gw20...@ftbfs.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:21:44PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit : I just want to get rid of the plain usage (3rd level) of the debian.net zone. This zone only confuses most of our users. Hello Martin, Indeed, the meaning of the .org/.net dichotomy is not well advertised and it has already been discussed. One of the proposition was that .debian.net sites should contain an explanation or a pointer to an explanation. I think that it is a good idea and I will apply it to upstream-metadata.debian.net. Perhaps www.debian.net could contain this explanation in multiple languages, or redirect to a relevant page on www.debian.org, instead of redirecting to the home page of www.debian.org ? That would be vastly preferable from enhanced red-tape on debian.net assignments, IMHO. I will second your solution. We could also publish in developers-reference and www.debian.net a best-practice usage guidelines that *suggests* how to behave to minimize confusion and what notices to add to any announcement postings to d-d-a, the blogsphere and social networks in order to reduce the number of people that will think it is something other than an experimental/beta/in-development DD-provided service. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624150419.gd24...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: We could also publish in developers-reference and www.debian.net a best-practice usage guidelines that *suggests* how to behave to minimize confusion and what notices to add to any announcement postings to d-d-a, the blogsphere and social networks in order to reduce the number of people that will think it is something other than an experimental/beta/in-development DD-provided service. Huh, instead of adding notices, disclaimers and other things we should be promoting new developments. Put them a beta/incubating/whatever banner but do promote them. The worst thing we can do as a project is calling names or putting stickers that say it's John Doe's foo. -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/js7p9a$nf7$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were others, please If only the username was encoded in that host we'd all know who to ask... ;) Simon. -- * A l'attaque par Junon Aoh! Choquant. Ce ne sont pas des * | gentils hommes -- Astérix chez les Bretons. | * * Brought to you by the letter C and the number 25 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623153124.gf6...@paranoidfreak.co.uk
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 16:31:24 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:50:00AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were others, please If only the username was encoded in that host we'd all know who to ask... ;) dig +short -ttxt love.debian.net -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623155024.gr20...@ftbfs.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. For the debian.net namespace I really don't care if for personal things (such as a personal website) are to be hosted under $entry.$uid.debian.net. I don't care mostly because I find that such uses are better disallowed. Nowadays one can find all sorts of things with a debian.net subdomain that I feel ashamed that it carries the debian.net name. As for the other part, i.e. project services, I really think they should be on the 3rd level: $service.debian.net. I also don't like them being called unofficial. If I, as a contributing member and DD, work on a project or service *for* Debian and it is called unofficial, I'm better off moving onto some other place where they actually welcome new developments. Call them in incubation if you want (and like I proposed on IRC.) That at least sounds like there is some sort of association and not some unknown foo bar thingy that somebody happens to have put under a debian.net subdomain. If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respectiv policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. If, however, the whole thing is nevertheless seen as only one topic, then I must say I profoundly object to the proposal. Regards, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/js4vb1$ct8$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:45:02PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. ... If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respective policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. I agree with both Martin's original points and Raphael's clarifications regarding (1) separating the concerns relating to the debian.net zone versus introduction of new services, and (2) using the more welcoming phrase 'incubating' rather than 'unofficial'. To be fair to Martin, we discussed (very briefly) 'unofficial' vs 'incubating' and I suggested using unofficial. Like Martin, I'm keen on simultaneously encouraging developer engagement / ingenuity while avoiding debian.net / debian.org confusion (or embarrassment, as Raphael suggests, in some cases). -- Luca Filipozzi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623181626.ga18...@emyr.net
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 12:45:02 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: Hi, I think you are combining two different issues: debian.net namespace and how new projects are developed/introduced. For the debian.net namespace I really don't care if for personal things (such as a personal website) are to be hosted under $entry.$uid.debian.net. I don't care mostly because I find that such uses are better disallowed. Nowadays one can find all sorts of things with a debian.net subdomain that I feel ashamed that it carries the debian.net name. I have spoken to quite a lot of lay users, none of them knew the difference between debian.net and debian.org. So, yes, maybe we should stop using the debian.net subdomain for things like this. As for the other part, i.e. project services, I really think they should be on the 3rd level: $service.debian.net. I have a problem here. Giving my above sentence, why should we use the debian.net subdomain here? Please give me a definition of project services. When do you call it a project service? Given the fact that lay users do not understand the fact between debian.net and debian.org they will not understand that some of those services are official services, and some are services in development (or incubation). I also don't like them being called unofficial. If I, as a contributing member and DD, work on a project or service *for* Debian and it is called unofficial, I'm better off moving onto some other place where they actually welcome new developments. Call them in incubation if you want (and like I proposed on IRC.) That at least sounds like there is some sort of association and not some unknown foo bar thingy that somebody happens to have put under a debian.net subdomain. If you and others agree that there are two different topics that should be discussed and their respectiv policy drafted, then I would be happy to join the discussion. I'm all open for it. Maybe we can establish a process, wherein we define criteria that need to be met to be called a incubation project. I have not yet spoken with all DSA members, but i personaly would be happy to host them below a incubator.debian.org zone. This will also give the projects in incubation some guidelines to get moved to debian.org hardware at a later point. Please keep in mind, that if you want you project/service to be run under the debian.org zone, those services need to run on DSA administrated hardware. If, however, the whole thing is nevertheless seen as only one topic, then I must say I profoundly object to the proposal. I just want to get rid of the plain usage (3rd level) of the debian.net zone. This zone only confuses most of our users. Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120623202143.gs20...@ftbfs.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Le Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:21:44PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit : I just want to get rid of the plain usage (3rd level) of the debian.net zone. This zone only confuses most of our users. Hello Martin, Indeed, the meaning of the .org/.net dichotomy is not well advertised and it has already been discussed. One of the proposition was that .debian.net sites should contain an explanation or a pointer to an explanation. I think that it is a good idea and I will apply it to upstream-metadata.debian.net. Perhaps www.debian.net could contain this explanation in multiple languages, or redirect to a relevant page on www.debian.org, instead of redirecting to the home page of www.debian.org ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120624014457.gb6...@falafel.plessy.net
RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking comments on a proposal to alter this practice. While the current practice is useful for the introduction of unofficial project services, it may involve certain risks. One risk is that outsiders can not and will not distinguish between debian.net and debian.org entries. Another risk is that those unofficial services will stall if the maintainer who 'owns' those entries leaves the project. We are also observing domain-squatting in the debian.net zone. Therefore, I would like to propose the following change in the debian.net entry policy: * Going forward, new user-associated debian.net entries will be added as 4th-level (or 5th-level, see last section) records in the debian.net zone in the form of $entry.$uid.debian.net, where $uid is your debian login name. For example, if I desired to introduce a 'foobar' entry, then it would be added to the debian.net zone as foobar.zobel.debian.net. The insertion of $uid would be automatic: you would not need to add it in the mail you submit to ud-mailgate. * Existing user-associated 3rd-level entries will remain for a transitional period of, let's say, one year. Corresponding 4th-level entries will be reserved to allow for transition. During the transition period, you may modify your 3rd-level entries, transition them to 4th-level entries, transition them to a role (see next section), or delete them. At the end of the transitional period, any remaining user-associated 3rd-level entries and corresponding 4th-level reservations would be removed. * New 3rd-level debian.net entries can still can be added, but would need to be role-associated (eg. qa, release-team, etc.) rather than user-associated. For this, I propose that we use this RFC to define some criteria which would need to be satisfied in order to have a role-associated 3rd-level entry be created. * An 'unofficial' role-associated 3rd-level debian.net service can become an 'official' 3rd-level debian.org service. Again, I propose that we use this RFC to define some criteria which would need to be satisfied. * Alternately, we may wish to put unofficial services under $entry.beta.debian.net and user-associated entries under $entry.$uid.user.debian.net so that 3rd-level entries in debian.net and debian.org point only to offical services. This would remove all ambiguity and matches what other organizations have done when dealing with official entries in their .com, .net, and .org zones. There is nothing carved into stone yet! I just want to hear your comments on this. The key point is that lay users will not understand the difference between debian.net and debian.org, and we should not require that they do. The purpose of this RFC is to seek comment on how to address this concern and the above proposal is perhaps one such way. Finally, please note that this is not specifically due to the recent http.debian.net conversation, although it did remind me that I needed to write up my thoughts. The concerns regarding debian.net vs debian.org had been expressed at DebConf 2011 and at DSA Sprint 2012; these concerns are not new and the above proposal should not be interpreted as a reaction to the introduction of http.debian.net. I want to simultaneously support the ingenuity of our community while avoiding confusion amongst our lay users. Thanks for your time, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, letting alone the expected discussion or its outcome as a whole: On 22.06.2012 23:01, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: * Going forward, new user-associated debian.net entries will be added as 4th-level (or 5th-level, see last section) records in the debian.net zone in the form of $entry.$uid.debian.net, where $uid is your debian login name. For example, if I desired to introduce a 'foobar' entry, then it would be added to the debian.net zone as foobar.zobel.debian.net. The insertion of $uid would be automatic: you would not need to add it in the mail you submit to ud-mailgate. why make life so complicated? We could use entirely another second level domain for these kinds of setups. Maybe we could ask dba for debian-maintainers.org? * New 3rd-level debian.net entries can still can be added, but would need to be role-associated (eg. qa, release-team, etc.) rather than user-associated. For this, I propose that we use this RFC to define some criteria which would need to be satisfied in order to have a role-associated 3rd-level entry be created. As a mentors.debian.net maintainer where literally nobody within role teams feels responsible I'm not thrilled about that. Likewise, this approach would suffer from a lock-in effect, as it would be really hard to establish an entirely new role team in a future as it is not entirely incredible they start with a debian.net service. By the way, as a random note: The Apache Software Foundation requires that new projects go through Incubator which follows a similar principle [1]. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi, On Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 23:23:34 +0200, Arno Töll wrote: By the way, as a random note: The Apache Software Foundation requires that new projects go through Incubator which follows a similar principle if we end up with a proper policy, why not do a thing like this in Debian too? Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B | GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012063953.gq20...@ftbfs.de
Re: RFC - Changing current policy of debian.net entries
Hi Martin, On Freitag, 22. Juni 2012, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: The current practice for debian.net entries is that they are directly entered in the debian.net zone as 3rd-level records. I am seeking comments on a proposal to alter this practice. I think your proposal is horrible for debian.net and nice and suitable for debian.org. Because, the proposal is taking the fun out of debian.net! Developing Debian should be taken seriously, but not so seriously that there is no fun. eg love.debian.net was great (why is it down?). and so are/were others, please don't destroy that. cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201206230050.01520.hol...@layer-acht.org
