GR for statement on diversity? (Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution)

[Filipus Klutiero]

On 2012-04-27 01:36, Kevin Mark wrote:

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:00:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

Otherwise, our lack of diversity can either be seen as a
desired/voluntary state of things, or as the result of a failure to
recruit "minorities". Here again, I'd be surprised if we didn't
agree that the latter is by far the most important explanation of
the two. There must be very few people, if any, that most of us
think should be excluded (completely and permanently) from
participation. I see the statement as a way to explicitly deny that
our current lack of diversity would be wanted.

yes.


In that sense, I think it's obvious and the message does not need to be made
an official statement. It can be simply put on the website.


The higher-up in an organization such a statement is made, the more weight
people put on it. And if it is endorsed by the project as offical, that is the
highest in terms of a signal/message to future user/contributers (vs action).
The action is left to the debian community to fulfill.



I agree. If you think this weight is worth the efforts required to pass 
a GR, feel free to propose one.



--
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/4f9daf6d.2010...@gmail.com

Re: Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Kevin Mark]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:00:21PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> 
> Otherwise, our lack of diversity can either be seen as a
> desired/voluntary state of things, or as the result of a failure to
> recruit "minorities". Here again, I'd be surprised if we didn't
> agree that the latter is by far the most important explanation of
> the two. There must be very few people, if any, that most of us
> think should be excluded (completely and permanently) from
> participation. I see the statement as a way to explicitly deny that
> our current lack of diversity would be wanted. 

yes.

> In that sense, I think it's obvious and the message does not need to be made
> an official statement. It can be simply put on the website.
>
The higher-up in an organization such a statement is made, the more weight
people put on it. And if it is endorsed by the project as offical, that is the
highest in terms of a signal/message to future user/contributers (vs action).  
The action is left to the debian community to fulfill.

-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux ==.| http://kevix.myopenid.com..|
| : :' : The Universal OS| mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/.|
| `. `'   http://www.debian.org/.| http://counter.li.org [#238656]|
|___`-Unless I ask to be CCd,.assume I am subscribed._|

A novice programmer was once assigned to code a simple financial
package.
The novice worked furiously for many days, but when his master
reviewed his program, he discovered that it contained a screen editor, a set
of generalized graphics routines, and artificial intelligence interface,
but not the slightest mention of anything financial.
When the master asked about this, the novice became indignant.
"Don't be so impatient," he said, "I'll put the financial stuff in eventually."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"


-- 
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/20120427053605.GB10236@horacrux

Re: Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Filipus Klutiero]

Le Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
>  By the letter of the Constitution, the DPL cannot bless the diversity
>  statement as a position statement of the Project, even if there is
>  consensus on it. Nor can Developers as a whole, unless they vote, no
>  matter the consensus. [*] That is a pity in this specific case, as it
>  imposes the use of a bureaucratic procedure in one of the (rare)
>  occasions where it could have been avoided. But dura lex, sed lex.

Hi Stefano,

does the diversity statement really need to be stamped « position statement » ?

In my understanding of the Constitution, it is totally acceptable to write on
our website that we welcome everybody, without voting a GR.  What would require
a GR would be to write that it is Debian's position that we welcome everybody.

The section 4.1.5 does not give much cues to draw the line between what is a an
« issue of the day » and what is not.  How about taking « position statement »
, « Debian's position » and similar qualifiers as indicators that a text was
voted in a GR, and correcting our website where it is not the case, rather than
voting a text that, thanks to the patience of Francesca, become a non-issue ?

The problem with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is for instance
that there are other documents in a somewhat similar case as the diversity
welcoming message, like the « Debian Position on Software Patents ».

It would be inconvenient and illogical that the texts that fall under the
section 5.1.4 (The Project Leader may make any decision for whom noone else has
responsibility) would not need a GR, while the diversity message would need
one, because it is a statement that underlines an existing situation rather
than being a decision.


I don't understand much from the last paragraph, but I otherwise agree 
with Charles. If we're not going to have a GR, that doesn't mean we 
can't ask everyone to help, it merely means we can't send the call for 
help as an official message with a "Debian project position statement" 
stamp.


The way I see it, our contributors are far from being representative of 
the world population's diversity. They're also far from being 
representative of people who have the talent needed/ideal to contribute. 
Nor even representative of people with the talents and skills 
(knowledge/experience) wanted.
I think nobody disagrees with that. The only thing that's perhaps less 
clear to me is how well our contributors-base represents our 
"power-user-base".


From there, we could see 2 problems. Some may see diversity as an end, 
and lack of diversity as a primary issue. We could have "employment 
equity/diversity" measures, which would certainly be controversial, but 
that's not what we're talking about here.


Otherwise, our lack of diversity can either be seen as a 
desired/voluntary state of things, or as the result of a failure to 
recruit "minorities". Here again, I'd be surprised if we didn't agree 
that the latter is by far the most important explanation of the two. 
There must be very few people, if any, that most of us think should be 
excluded (completely and permanently) from participation. I see the 
statement as a way to explicitly deny that our current lack of diversity 
would be wanted. In that sense, I think it's obvious and the message 
does not need to be made an official statement. It can be simply put on 
the website.



--
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/4f99c575.8050...@gmail.com

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:

>> Personally, I think there would be a lot of merit in holding a GR on
>> that as well.  Legal issues are always highly contentious, and it's
>> easier to tell people to follow that position with their Debian work
>> when it's been voted on as a GR.

> I disagree on this one, at least in its current form.  The Software
> Patents document is a mixture of position statement (for outsiders to
> see what our view is) and internal process advice (for insiders and
> allies to know what to do).

> I don't think the latter should be the subject of a GR.  Otherwise the
> logical conclusion is that we may end up voting on the developers'
> reference.  And because I don't think it makes sense to vote on
> whether we agree with legal advice.

Hm, yes, those are both really good points.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.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/87y5pm9z07@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:21:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, 
> statement may be issued without general resolution"):
> > So I would much prefer that Stefano simply start a GR in favor of the
> > diversity statement instead.  He does have a leg up in that as DPL, he
> > can propose the GR without waiting for seconds. :)
> 
> Indeed.  This is what that facility is for.  I think the Stefano
> should do so to reduce the bureaucracy needed.

It is indeed an option I've initially considered.  The main "advantage"
I would have in proposing a GR is that the DPL does not need to wait for
seconds. Given the amount of support that the diversity statement has
received, I very much doubt this GR will have trouble finding seconds.
Considering that, the reason why I've suggested that Francesca starts
the GR is to give historical credit (in the GR archive) to the fact that
the initial idea of the diversity statement has been hers, not mine. I
realize that GRs are not about credit, but it still seems something
appropriate to do in this case.

FWIW, I've briefly discussed this with Francesca on IRC a few days ago.
She's fine with the idea and will post a draft GR on -vote ASAP.

In addition to the above, what I can do to make the process as smooth as
possible is to reduce the discussion period to 1 week, and I intend to
do so.

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: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement 
may be issued without general resolution"):
> So I would much prefer that Stefano simply start a GR in favor of the
> diversity statement instead.  He does have a leg up in that as DPL, he
> can propose the GR without waiting for seconds. :)

Indeed.  This is what that facility is for.  I think the Stefano
should do so to reduce the bureaucracy needed.

Ian.


-- 
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/20373.22378.326368.180...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Russ Allbery writes:
> [re diversity statement]
>
> That's actually part of the reason why I, personally, would like it to be
> a GR.  I'd like to see the Debian Project make that statement, and putting
> the stamp of official blessing of a GR on it does make that statement
> somewhat stronger (and hence somewhat more effective in extending that
> welcome).

I agree.

> > The problem with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is for
> > instance that there are other documents in a somewhat similar case as
> > the diversity welcoming message, like the « Debian Position on Software
> > Patents ».
> 
> Personally, I think there would be a lot of merit in holding a GR on that
> as well.  Legal issues are always highly contentious, and it's easier to
> tell people to follow that position with their Debian work when it's been
> voted on as a GR.

I disagree on this one, at least in its current form.  The Software
Patents document is a mixture of position statement (for outsiders to
see what our view is) and internal process advice (for insiders and
allies to know what to do).

I don't think the latter should be the subject of a GR.  Otherwise the
logical conclusion is that we may end up voting on the developers'
reference.  And because I don't think it makes sense to vote on
whether we agree with legal advice.

Ian.


--
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/20373.23644.57816.539...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Plessy  writes:

> In my understanding of the Constitution, it is totally acceptable to
> write on our website that we welcome everybody, without voting a GR.
> What would require a GR would be to write that it is Debian's position
> that we welcome everybody.

That's actually part of the reason why I, personally, would like it to be
a GR.  I'd like to see the Debian Project make that statement, and putting
the stamp of official blessing of a GR on it does make that statement
somewhat stronger (and hence somewhat more effective in extending that
welcome).

> The problem with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is for
> instance that there are other documents in a somewhat similar case as
> the diversity welcoming message, like the « Debian Position on Software
> Patents ».

Personally, I think there would be a lot of merit in holding a GR on that
as well.  Legal issues are always highly contentious, and it's easier to
tell people to follow that position with their Debian work when it's been
voted on as a GR.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.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/87pqb0v4i4@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Charles Plessy]

Le Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 05:27:22PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> 
> By the letter of the Constitution, the DPL cannot bless the diversity
> statement as a position statement of the Project, even if there is
> consensus on it. Nor can Developers as a whole, unless they vote, no
> matter the consensus. [*] That is a pity in this specific case, as it
> imposes the use of a bureaucratic procedure in one of the (rare)
> occasions where it could have been avoided. But dura lex, sed lex.

Hi Stefano,

does the diversity statement really need to be stamped « position statement » ?

In my understanding of the Constitution, it is totally acceptable to write on
our website that we welcome everybody, without voting a GR.  What would require
a GR would be to write that it is Debian's position that we welcome everybody.

The section 4.1.5 does not give much cues to draw the line between what is a an
« issue of the day » and what is not.  How about taking « position statement »
, « Debian's position » and similar qualifiers as indicators that a text was
voted in a GR, and correcting our website where it is not the case, rather than
voting a text that, thanks to the patience of Francesca, become a non-issue ?

The problem with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is for instance
that there are other documents in a somewhat similar case as the diversity
welcoming message, like the « Debian Position on Software Patents ».

It would be inconvenient and illogical that the texts that fall under the
section 5.1.4 (The Project Leader may make any decision for whom noone else has
responsibility) would not need a GR, while the diversity message would need
one, because it is a statement that underlines an existing situation rather
than being a decision.

Cheers,

-- 
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/20120422023022.gc19...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 05:52:37PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!

> >There seems to be only two ways out of this: (1) have a GR, or (2) turn
> >a blind eye on the Constitution recommended procedure, accepting we made
> >a mistake (of which I'm ready to take the blame), and move on. While I
> >still see the advantage of not doing a GR, I don't think they warrant
> >doing (2) as that will set a pretty bad precedent.

> Well, in theory you could also send a mail to d-d-a, announcing your
> intention to publish the statement, and wait if someone proposes a
> GR to override you.

> But I agree, that 1 should be preferred over that, just mention it
> for completeness ;)

As a strict constitutionalist, I would feel compelled to propose a GR on
principle, even though I also support having such a diversity statement.

So I would much prefer that Stefano simply start a GR in favor of the
diversity statement instead.  He does have a leg up in that as DPL, he
can propose the GR without waiting for seconds. :)

-- 
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: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

On 21.04.2012 17:27, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:


There seems to be only two ways out of this: (1) have a GR, or (2) turn
a blind eye on the Constitution recommended procedure, accepting we made
a mistake (of which I'm ready to take the blame), and move on. While I
still see the advantage of not doing a GR, I don't think they warrant
doing (2) as that will set a pretty bad precedent.


Well, in theory you could also send a mail to d-d-a, announcing your 
intention to publish the statement, and wait if someone proposes a GR to 
override you.


But I agree, that 1 should be preferred over that, just mention it for 
completeness ;)



Best regards,
  Alexander


--
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/4f92d7c5.3060...@schmehl.info

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:38:25AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps because under the constitution, position statements are a
> power that the developers exercise under GR, not a power that the DPL
> has?

In spite of the rhetoric tone :-), this is indeed an important point.
Now that you made me double-check, I agree with you. I hereby apologize
for having overlooked this when I proposed to proceed differently. (Too
bad this hasn't been mentioned back then..., but that's life, I guess.)

By the letter of the Constitution, the DPL cannot bless the diversity
statement as a position statement of the Project, even if there is
consensus on it. Nor can Developers as a whole, unless they vote, no
matter the consensus. [*] That is a pity in this specific case, as it
imposes the use of a bureaucratic procedure in one of the (rare)
occasions where it could have been avoided. But dura lex, sed lex.

There seems to be only two ways out of this: (1) have a GR, or (2) turn
a blind eye on the Constitution recommended procedure, accepting we made
a mistake (of which I'm ready to take the blame), and move on. While I
still see the advantage of not doing a GR, I don't think they warrant
doing (2) as that will set a pretty bad precedent.

Bottom line: I propose to have a GR. I think it would be nice if
Francesca starts it, and I hope it will confirm the result of this
discussion.


Again, my apologies for having suggested to proceed otherwise,
Cheers.


[*] For the Constitution geeks, the quirk is that "[position]
statements" are explicitly covered by §4.1.5, so they do not fall
under §5.1.4 ("The Project Leader may […] make any decision for whom
noone else has responsibility."). Also, §4.1.5 is bound by the
procedure in §4.2, which is the usual voting procedure. I hereby
propose this as a nice NM question for the future!
-- 
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: Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution (Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project)

[Filipus Klutiero]

Hi Stefano,

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>  The message from Stefano Zacchiroli quoted below includes a wrap-up
>  (of the wrap-up (of the...)) about the statement on diversity in
>  contributors proposed by Francesca Ciceri.
>  Stefano asked to publish it in #669011, although the statement is
>  not approved.

I beg you pardon? It's been approved by me with that mail, after having
given time to comment on that to readers of this list.


"approved" in the sense of "sanctioned". A few people did say they 
thought the statement should be issued.



  Also, please note
how -project was Cc:-ed on my request already (see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/04/msg00073.html) so it's
not clear to me why you felt there was a need to give this "warning"
kind of mail.


Yes, the information was already given, the purpose of my mail was 
simply to change the subject, making it obvious to quick readers of 
debian-project that your mail wasn't simply a comment on a draft proposal.



--
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/4f91a785.60...@gmail.com

Re: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution (Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project)

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 09:25:21AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> > The message from Stefano Zacchiroli quoted below includes a wrap-up
> > (of the wrap-up (of the...)) about the statement on diversity in
> > contributors proposed by Francesca Ciceri.
> > Stefano asked to publish it in #669011, although the statement is
> > not approved.

> I beg you pardon? It's been approved by me with that mail, after having
> given time to comment on that to readers of this list. Also, please note
> how -project was Cc:-ed on my request already (see
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/04/msg00073.html) so it's
> not clear to me why you felt there was a need to give this "warning"
> kind of mail.

Perhaps because under the constitution, position statements are a power that
the developers exercise under GR, not a power that the DPL has?

-- 
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: xth wrap-up about statement on diversity, statement may be issued without general resolution (Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project)

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> The message from Stefano Zacchiroli quoted below includes a wrap-up
> (of the wrap-up (of the...)) about the statement on diversity in
> contributors proposed by Francesca Ciceri.
> Stefano asked to publish it in #669011, although the statement is
> not approved.

I beg you pardon? It's been approved by me with that mail, after having
given time to comment on that to readers of this list. Also, please note
how -project was Cc:-ed on my request already (see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/04/msg00073.html) so it's
not clear to me why you felt there was a need to give this "warning"
kind of mail.

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