Need debian lenny source code
Hi Sir, I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help me. Thanking you, Venkatesh Pawar.
Re: Need debian lenny source code
Hi Venkatesh, On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote: I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help me. You can put the following in your sources.list to be able to apt-get source packagename on a Lenny system: deb-src http://archive.debian.org/debian lenny main Cheers, 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/97c8df20a90a24a251e3c5a43cae6848.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Need debian lenny source code
Hi, On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:04:29AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Fri, December 13, 2013 09:44, Venkatesh Pawar wrote: I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for some operation purpose. You can put the following in your sources.list to be able to apt-get source packagename on a Lenny system: deb-src http://archive.debian.org/debian lenny main Note you can also search old packages at: http://archive.debian.net/packagename then use the relevant links to source, binaries etc. -- Simon Paillard -- 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/20131213213745.gc15...@mraw.org
Re: Need debian lenny source code
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Venkatesh Pawar wrote: I am Venkatesh Pawar need a link for debian lenny os source code for some operation purpose. So can you please tell me from where should i download source code of debian lenny os. It will be great help if uou help me. Others have answered your question but I would like to point out that Debian lenny is obsolete and no longer receives security updates. I suggest that you should upgrade to Debian wheezy as soon as possible. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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/caktje6fouk8s5a44ip9o0xfucenjf9noxdh543dcnrodyym...@mail.gmail.com
Reg: Debian Lenny 5.03
Hi, I was searching for Debian Lenny 5.03 CD/DVD in your website, but couldn't find any. Can you please redirect me to appropriate link from where I can download Debian Lenny 5.03 iso. Thank You. Regards, Syed Ahsan Ishtiaque
problems regarding the configuration of adsl modem and usb modem for gprs in debian 5.03 lenny
Dear Sir, I am Brendon from India and have a problem regarding the internet connection in debian 5.03 lenny,I tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really can get to the exact point.when I try using it by putting in the provider username and the password nothing helps. I also used the pppoeconfig available . Can you please help me as I really like using debian since it helps me in programming. I cannot connect to my broadband network as well as from my mobile phone(Nokia) gprs.Hope you will do the needful. My email id is cyberbr...@hotmail.com Best Regards Brendon Fernandes _ Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop
Re: problems regarding the configuration of adsl modem and usb modem for gprs in debian 5.03 lenny
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:02:50AM +, brendon fernandes wrote: Dear Sir, I am Brendon from India and have a problem regarding the internet connection in debian 5.03 lenny,I tried using network manager in Gnome version but I really can get to the exact point.when I try using it by putting in the provider username and the password nothing helps. I also used the pppoeconfig available . Can you please help me as I really like using debian since it helps me in programming. I cannot connect to my broadband network as well as from my mobile phone(Nokia) gprs.Hope you will do the needful. My email id is cyberbr...@hotmail.com Hi Brendon, These types of problems are better discussed on the debian-user list: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/ -Eric Rz. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Dear all, The votes around the Lenny release revealed some disagreements around the constitution, DFSG, supermajority requirements and what people think is 'obvious'. What I would like to do is clarify some of these before they come up again. To avoid overloading -project I'd like to move the initial discussion somewhere else. If you are interested in developing the ballot options for this, please follow up on -vote. We'll move back to -project when there are more firm suggestions. I'm going to try and outline what I think are the issues and relevant factions. Please use this as a starting point for finding out where there are disagreements and what points of view people have in order to construct a clear ballot. We're not aiming to decide what is the right answer in the discussion, we are aiming to decide what is the right question and so I hope the discussion can remain polite. Because we have disagreements about whether or not supermajority is required, I would like all of these votes to explicitly amend the constitution in all options, so it is completely clear. After the first vote that may not matter for the rest, of course and this is why I would like this vote to be the first one to run. Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents, but doesn't explicitly amend it; does this count as amending it? If it does not, then how is this reconciled with the fact that we have just agreed to do something which would contravene our own foundation documents? Positions (in no particular order): - The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't matter what the difference is. - Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always needs 3:1. - Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual delegates/ developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they see fit. - The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG issues if it's needed for things to work. - Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes do (and slightly orthogonal, but:) - Ballots which are ambiguous about resolving the clash between them and a FD should be rejected and not run. Constitutional/FD interpretations Someone sometimes will need to interpret the constitution or other FDs, however well we word it (but I think where we find disagreements/ambiguities we should then fix them) Positions: - Secretary does it - DPL does it - some other group (eg the TC does it) - The DD making the relevant decision does it Release team vs DFSG issues DFSG applies to sid. If it's there and no-one has removed it, the RT can snapshot the archive at any point for the release. DFSG or other RC bugs; it's up to them whether to ignore them. This is possibly a subset of the above two items, however, I think it's important enough to warrant being explicitly specified. Positions: - RT can snapshot releases whenever and ignore whatever bugs they like - If it's not a regression there's no problem, we're still improving, there's no point in delaying releases for it. - No, the release is what counts, transitive problems in sid less so, but we mustn't release with DFSG problems I'm sure there are other related positions I've missed off too. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
Am 2009-02-15 00:08:44, schrieb Martin Meredith: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on message id :D ??? -- You are using mutt! ~B 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com Multipe folders can be searched from a macro... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # http://www.tamay-dogan.net/ http://www.can4linux.org/ Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 04:48:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Gebhardt Thomas gebha...@hrz.uni-marburg.de (10/02/2009): just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on message id :D / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details. Which I believe only searches in the current folder, so it's not exactly that useful. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
Hi! Martin Meredith schrieb: / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details. Which I believe only searches in the current folder, so it's not exactly that useful. Take a look at the grepmail package. IIRC it can do what you asked. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Post-Lenny discussions
Firstly, Yay Release [0]!!! Congrats to everyone, and particular to those people who have been up all night making this happen. Since Lenny has now been released I just wanted to briefly touch on the discussions which were postponed, so people know they are not being forgotten. As dato said[1], we should do a bit of scheduling around them so as not to overload people. Most importantly though, we should ignore them for another few weeks so that people can get some good hacking done and do everything else they've been putting off because of the freeze. So, could people email dato and myself if you want to start a large discussion so we can make sure people don't double up and we don't overload everyone by trying to discuss everything at once. We're also trying to keep track of this on the wiki[2], so updating that is also good. Everyone else, get hacking, break unstable, make all the uploads you've been putting off for the last few monnths! Matt 0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2009/msg2.html 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/01/msg00132.html 2. http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Gebhardt Thomas gebha...@hrz.uni-marburg.de (10/02/2009): just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on message id :D signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Martin Meredith wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:14:53PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Gebhardt Thomas gebha...@hrz.uni-marburg.de (10/02/2009): just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com I so need to write a function that'll let me search my mails in mutt based on message id :D / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details. Don Armstrong -- Sentenced to two years hard labor (for sodomy), Oscar Wilde stood handcuffed in driving rain waiting for transport to prison. If this is the way Queen Victoria treats her prisoners, he remarked, she doesn't deserve to have any. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
* Don Armstrong [Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:48:16 -0800]: / i~49862854.1070...@googlemail.com (~i, not i~, as can be seen in the manual URL that was included.) See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-4.html#ss4.2 for details. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Ana Belén y Víctor Manuel - Isla de Palma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
* Gunnar Wolf: Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this feature. I agree with announcing the graphical interface here, as it was hidden by default, but AFAIK the crypto part was already there (of course, exciting new developments in it might exist and warrant this) It wasn't in the installer in March 2006, but beyond that, my memory is foggy. If you decide to mention this, please call it full disk encryption (the boot partition doesn't count as far as the industry is concerned). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
Hi, just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
Gebhardt Thomas gebha...@hrz.uni-marburg.de (10/02/2009): just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. 49862854.1070...@googlemail.com Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Hi! Adeodato Simó schrieb: Hey, Alexander, thanks for your work here! Some minor comments follow: Thanks for the feedback; I applied your changes / added FIXME so I won't forget them. Hypervisor 3.2.1, OpenJDK 6b11 and more than 23,000 other ready to use software packages./p I don't know about the 23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW there are around 12,500 source packages in Lenny.) In any case, I'm happy to leave this issue to your discretion. Yes the 23'000 are the binary packages for i386. Oh, I better correct that to 22'000 to reflect other archs, too. I took the number of binary packages, because we usually take the number of binary packages. It was in the last announcements and it's even on our front page. While I think that source packages would be fairer, we should either leave it or change it on all places. pUpgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 from the previous release, Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 codenamed qetch/q, are automatically handled by the aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get was preferred now over aptitude. Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case? It is consistent with the Release notes (at least the versions from weekend and today) and the coordinator of the release notes didn't complain, yet ;) h2About Debian/h2 Was there going to be a brief mention of the dedication to Thiemo in the announcement? (I think I saw the idea thrown somewhere, I'm just not sure if something came out of it.) Shame on me for forgeting that; added a FIXME, if someone comes up with an actual text proposal I would be glad. I always felt insecure when writing these texts in a foreign language the last times :( Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Hi Gunnar! Gunnar Wolf schrieb: !-- pUsing a now fully integrated installation process, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 comes with out-of-the-box support for encrypted partitions. This release introduces a newly developed graphical front end to the installation system supporting scripts using composed characters and complex languages; the installation system for Debian GNU/Linux has now been translated to 58 languages./p -- Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be rephrased +- this way: [..] Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this feature. Precisely. The second and the third paragraph are taken unchanged from the etch announcement. I'm not yet sure what to mention there, so I left the old paragraphs as a reminder to add something there and commented them out so they wouldn't appear should I forget them ;) Thanks for your feedback anyway; mentioning the overdone installer and improved g-i sounds sane. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:04:21PM +0100, Gebhardt Thomas wrote: just noticed that epoche 1234567890 is at 2009-02-14. That would be a release date that is easy to remember. f...@laurie:~$ ipython In [1]:import datetime In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890) Out[2]:datetime.datetime(2009, 2, 13, 23, 31, 30) Seems about half an hour before the 14th. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On 2009-02-10 18:50, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Yes the 23'000 are the binary packages for i386. Oh, I better correct that to 22'000 to reflect other archs, too. I took the number of binary packages, because we usually take the number of binary packages. It was in the last announcements and it's even on our front page. While I think that source packages would be fairer, we should either leave it or change it on all places. It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000 *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like lying... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Hi! W. Martin Borgert schrieb: It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000 *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like lying... What about: ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages (build from over 12,000 source packages). For the end user the number of the binary packages is more interesting than the source packages. With that we have both: The interesting number and the true number. Best regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org (10/02/2009): On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: What about: ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages (build from over 12,000 source packages). built? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:54:02PM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Hi! W. Martin Borgert schrieb: It's difficult to change all occurrences at the same time. Why not start with the release announcement and explicitly say 1x000 *source* packages? Let's change it in other documents/pages when we're at them. Counting binary packages feels a little bit like lying... What about: ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages (build from over 12,000 source packages). For the end user the number of the binary packages is more interesting than the source packages. With that we have both: The interesting number and the true number. I think it's the other way around. Users don't really care, for example, that we build 10 binary packages out of the iceweasel source, or that we build a couple dozen binary packages out of glibc. We include iceweasel 3.0, and we include glibc 2.7. That's what's meaningful to the users. noah signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On 2009-02-10 20:54, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: What about: ... and more than 23,000 other packages ready to use software packages (build from over 12,000 source packages). Perfect! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
[ dropping some lists from CC since the involved people are either subscribed somewhere else or BCCed ] Alexander Reichle-Schmehl schrieb: The most current version may be found in a private subversion repository (to avoid conflicts when using the wiki). You can get the most recent version from http://svn.schmehl.info/svn/debian-publicity/20090214-lenny-release/lenny-announcement.en.wml ; translators might later be interested in http://svn.schmehl.info/websvn/listing.php?repname=debian-publicitypath=%2F20090214-lenny-release%2Frev=0sc=0 to track changes in the document. Okay, I think I merged all the content related suggested by now as well as most spelling / grammatical improvements. The current version is available on the named location. I think content wise we are done; it's quite long for an announcement, but I think it's still okay. So please give it an other content check, which I will add tomorrow. Some interesting stuff for translators will follow in a separate mail. Best regards, Alexander define-tag pagetitleDebian GNU/Linux 5.0 released/define-tag define-tag release_date2009-02-14/define-tag #use wml::debian::news pThe Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 5.0,codenamed qlenny/q after 22 months of constant development. Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system which supports a total of twelve processor architectures and includes the KDE, GNOME, Xfce and LXDE desktop environments. It also features compatibility with the FHS v2.3 and software developed for version 3.2 of the LSB./p !-- Fixme: Something really cool should be added here -- pDebian GNU/Linux runs on computers ranging from palmtops and handheld systems to supercomputers, and on nearly everything in between. A total of twelve architectures are supported including: Sun SPARC (sparc), HP Alpha (alpha), Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc), Intel IA-32 (i386) and IA-64 (ia64), HP PA-RISC (hppa), MIPS (mips, mipsel), ARM (arm, armel), IBM S/390 (s390) and AMD64 and Intel EM64T (amd64)./p pDebian GNU/Linux 5.0 (Lenny) will include the new ARM EABI port, qArmel/q. This new port provides a more efficient use of both modern and future ARM processors. As a result the old ARM port (arm) has now been deprecated./p pThis includes support for Marvell's Orion platform or devices based on the Orion platform, like QNAP Turbo Station, HP mv2120, and Buffalo Kurobox Pro as well as Netbooks, such as the EEE PC by Asus. Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 qLenny/q also contains the build tools for Emdebian which allow Debian source packages to be cross-built and shrunk to suit embedded ARM systems./p pWith the integration of X.org 7.3 the X server autoconfigures itself with most hardware. Newly introduced packages allow the full support of NTFS filesystems or the usage of most multimedia keys out of the box. Support for Adobe#174; Flash#174; format files are available via the swfdec or Gnash plugin. Overall improvements for notebooks have been introduced, like out of the box support of CPU frequency scaling./p pThe inclusion of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology, into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based applications in Debian's main repository./p pFurther improvement regarding the security of the system include the installation of available security updates before the first reboot by the installation system, the reduction of setuid root binaries and open ports in the standard installation as well as building several security-critical packages with GCC Hardening features. Various applications have specific improvements, too. PHP for example is now built with the Suhosin hardening patch./p pFor non native English speaking user the package management now supports translated package descriptions which will automatically show the description of a package in the native language of the user if available. An other interesting feature introduced in the package management system is the use of differential updates for package index files./p pDebian GNU/Linux can be installed from various installation media such as DVDs, CDs, USB sticks and floppies, or from the network. GNOME is the default desktop environment and is contained on the first CD. The K Desktop Environment (KDE), the Xfce or the LXDE desktop can be installed through two new alternative CD images. Again available with Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 are multi-arch CDs and DVDs supporting installation of multiple architectures from a single disc as well as Blu-ray Discs allowing the archive for an entire architecture to be shipped on a single installation medium./p pIn addition to the regular installation media, Debian GNU/Linux can now also be directly used without prior installation. These special images are also known as live images and are available for CDs, USB sticks and different forms of network setups. Initially, these are provided for the amd64 and i386 architectures only./p pThe installation
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: === h2Dedication/h2 pDebian GNU/Linux 5.0 qLenny/q to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian Developer who died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident. There seems to be a part of the sentence missing... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Luk Claes schrieb: pDebian GNU/Linux 5.0 qLenny/q to Thiemo Seufer, a Debian Developer who died on December 26th, 2008 in a tragic car accident. There seems to be a part of the sentence missing... Thanks, fixed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: lenny release at epoche 1234567890 ?
Hi, On Tuesday 10 February 2009 20:04, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: In [2]:datetime.datetime.utcfromtimestamp(1234567890) Out[2]:datetime.datetime(2009, 2, 13, 23, 31, 30) Seems about half an hour before the 14th. oh, indead. I accidentally used local time. That's a pity! Thanks, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Draft for lenny release announcement
[ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of the current state ] Hi! Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from ready :( Especially the second and third paragraphs need a better replacement; maybe the d-i or cd folks have a good idea about that? I tried my best to make the draft based on http://wiki.debian.org/NewInLenny and own experience but I'm sure I missed important thing. So please feel free to point out really important changes, which should be mentioned in the announcement. About the timeline... Hopefully we'll release next Saturday... So I would like to see the content of the announcement finished by Wednesday and use the remaining time for reviewing and translating the announcement. -l10n-english and -i18n will that be enough time for you? I know that ideally translators would work on a frozen version of the announcement, but I fear that won't fit into the remaining time. The most current version may be found in a private subversion repository (to avoid conflicts when using the wiki). You can get the most recent version from http://svn.schmehl.info/svn/debian-publicity/20090214-lenny-release/lenny-announcement.en.wml ; translators might later be interested in http://svn.schmehl.info/websvn/listing.php?repname=debian-publicitypath=%2F20090214-lenny-release%2Frev=0sc=0 to track changes in the document. Best regards, Alexander PS: I set reply-to to the publicity list, but feel free to follow up to an other list when discussing specific points (like translations); I'll try to follow the discussion on all lists. define-tag pagetitleDebian GNU/Linux 5.0 released/define-tag define-tag release_date2009-02-14/define-tag #use wml::debian::news pThe Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 5.0, codenamed qetch/q, after 22 months of constant development. Debian GNU/Linux is a free operating system which supports a total of eleven processor architectures and includes the KDE, GNOME Xfce and lxde desktop environments. It also features cryptographic software and compatibility with the FHS v2.3 and software developed for version 3.2 of the LSB./p !-- pUsing a now fully integrated installation process, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 comes with out-of-the-box support for encrypted partitions. This release introduces a newly developed graphical front end to the installation system supporting scripts using composed characters and complex languages; the installation system for Debian GNU/Linux has now been translated to 58 languages./p -- pAlso beginning with Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, the package management system has been improved regarding security and efficiency. Secure APT allows the verification of the integrity of packages downloaded from a mirror. Updated package indices won't be downloaded in their entirety, but instead patched with smaller files containing only differences from earlier versions./p -- pDebian GNU/Linux runs on computers ranging from palmtops and handheld systems to supercomputers, and on nearly everything in between. A total of eleven architectures are supported including: Sun SPARC (sparc), HP Alpha (alpha), Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc), Intel IA-32 (i386) and IA-64 (ia64), HP PA-RISC (hppa), MIPS (mips, mipsel), ARM (arm), IBM S/390 (s390) and AMD64 and Intel EM64T (amd64)./p pThis includes support for Marvell's Orion platform or devices based on the Orion platform, like QNAP Turbo Station, HP mv2120, and Buffalo Kurobox Pro./p pWith the integration of X.org 7.3 the X server autoconfigures itself with most hardware. Newly introduced packages allow the full support of NTFS filesystems or the usage of most multimedia keys out of the box. Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin. Overall improvements for notebooks have been introduced, like out of the box support of CPU frequency scaling./p pThe integration of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology, into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based applications in Debians main repository./p pFurther improvement regarding the security of the system include the installation of available security updates before the first reboot by the installation system, the reduction of setuid root binaries and open ports in the standard installation as well as building several security-critical packages with GCC Hardening features. Various applications have specific improvements, too. PHP for example is now built with the Suhosin hardening patch./p pDebian GNU/Linux can be installed from various installation media such as DVDs, CDs, USB sticks and floppies, or from the network. GNOME is the default desktop environment and is contained on the first CD. The K Desktop Environment (KDE), the Xfce or the lxde desktop can be installed through two new alternative CD images. Again available with Debian GNU/Linux 5.0
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Hey, Alexander, thanks for your work here! Some minor comments follow: supports a total of eleven processor architectures As per Riku's comment about armel being missing, this should be 12. A total of eleven architectures are supported including: Same here. Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin. Should Gnash be mentioned here? Is it ready for such a high profile mention? (Maintainers Bcc'ed.) pThe integration of OpenJDK, a free version of Sun's Java technology, into Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 made it possible to ship Java based applications in Debians main repository./p ^^^ Debian's 2.4.7, Iceweasel (an unbranded version of Mozilla Firefox 3.0.5), Icedove ^ 3.0.6 (will migrate soon) Iceape (an unbranded version of Mozilla Seamonkey 1.1.14), Iceape has been dropped (we only keep the -dev packages for Build-Dependencies), so please drop that bit from the announcement. PostgreSQL 8.3.5, This may be 8.3.6 in the end, I'll let you know if that's the case. MySQL 5.1.30 and 5.0.51a, GNU Compiler Collection 4.3.2, Linux kernel version 2.6.26, Apache 2.2.9, Samba 3.2.5, Python 2.5.2 and 2.4.6, Perl 5.10.0, PHP 5.2.6, Asterisk 1.4.21.2, Emacs 22, Inkscapoe 0.46, Nagios 3.06, Xen ^ Inkscape (typo) Hypervisor 3.2.1, OpenJDK 6b11 and more than 23,000 other ready to use software packages./p I don't know about the 23,000 figure. It is binary package based, and I'm not sure if that's really fair, because splitting an upstream into different .debs is after all an artifact of the distribution. (FWIW there are around 12,500 source packages in Lenny.) In any case, I'm happy to leave this issue to your discretion. pUpgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 from the previous release, Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 codenamed qetch/q, are automatically handled by the aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get was preferred now over aptitude. Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case? h2About Debian/h2 Was there going to be a brief mention of the dedication to Thiemo in the announcement? (I think I saw the idea thrown somewhere, I'm just not sure if something came out of it.) Thanks! -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On Monday 09 February 2009 13:19:06 Adeodato Simó wrote: Support for Macromedias Flash format is available via the swfdec plugin. Should Gnash be mentioned here? Is it ready for such a high profile mention? (Maintainers Bcc'ed.) I believe this would have to be (replace (R) with the registered trademark symbol if available in the charset being used to publish the release): Support for Adobe(R) Flash(R) format files are available via the swfdec [and/or Gnash] plugin. And the release would have to include (at the bottom somewhere): “Adobe” and “Flash” are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries. See http://www.adobe.com/misc/trademarks.html and the PDF files linked from that page for more details. Graham -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl dijo [Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:15:23AM +0100]: (...) !-- pUsing a now fully integrated installation process, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 comes with out-of-the-box support for encrypted partitions. This release introduces a newly developed graphical front end to the installation system supporting scripts using composed characters and complex languages; the installation system for Debian GNU/Linux has now been translated to 58 languages./p -- Umh... This paragraph seems to clump together very disparate concepts. Yes, they are installer-related - Maybe it should be rephrased +- this way: The installer for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 has received a major overhaul. Among other features, it comes with out-of-the-box support for encrypted partitions. This release introduces (...) That will make it a bit clearer, IMHO. Now, Etch already included the out-of-the-box encryption support - I wrote an article on February 2007 specifically talking about this feature. I agree with announcing the graphical interface here, as it was hidden by default, but AFAIK the crypto part was already there (of course, exciting new developments in it might exist and warrant this) Looking at the many points (I am writing as I am reading), maybe this first comment I made would be better served by adding sections (i.e. Installation, Desktop, Laptops, Hardware support) instead of rewording paragraphs as I just suggested..? Thank you - as always, your work is much appreciated. And I fail to see the strong en_DE accent that used to characterize your texts :) -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On 2009-02-09, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl alexan...@schmehl.info wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --040603030801070601030404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [ Sorry for the cross post; just trying to make sure everyone is aware of the current state ] Hi! Attached you'll find the current draft of the announcement for the lenny release. Based upon the announcement for the last release it's far from ready :( Maybe add a new about all the fancy games that are included in Lenny? Nexuiz, OpenArena, Battle for Wesnoth, FreeCiv, FreeCol, SuperTux, Torcs? And you should mention GoPlay, which allows comfortable browsing of games. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: pUpgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get was preferred now over aptitude. Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended over apt-get). Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case? Yes please. -- \ “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O | `\ Lord, make my enemies ridiculous!’ And God granted it.” | _o__)—Voltaire | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
Ben Finney wrote: Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: pUpgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get was preferred now over aptitude. Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended over apt-get). Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case? The preferred tool is aptitude. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Draft for lenny release announcement
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:07:28PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: Ben Finney wrote: Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: pUpgrades [… are automatically handled by the aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool. This should be consistent with the Release Notes. I haven't been tracking the relevant section there very closely, but I thought apt-get was preferred now over aptitude. Whereas I was sure the opposite is true (aptitude is now recommended over apt-get). Could you investigate, and swap the order if that's the case? The preferred tool is aptitude. This is not a matter for you to decide by fiat. The tools recommended in the release notes should be the ones that work most reliably for dist-upgrading from the previous release. Based on various upgrade reports I've seen over the past year, that isn't aptitude. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: lenny
Hi, On Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 14:19:28 +0100, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com wrote: Dear Debian Team! When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny distribution release available? When it's ready. :-) There are currently 101 release critical bugs concerning the next release, so we are getting closer, but it's hard to tell. Maybe 4w from now, maybe half a year from now. Greetings Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.org | Debian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster Public key http://zobel.ftbfs.de/5d64f870.asc - KeyID: 5D64 F870 GPG Fingerprint: 5DB3 1301 375A A50F 07E7 302F 493E FB8E 5D64 F870 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: lenny
On Mon Jan 19 14:19, tamas.garamsz...@polimerieuropa.com wrote: When will be the Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 Lenny distribution release available? As Martin says, there are still bugs we are trying to squash. The main blocker, however, is the next RC of the installer, which is what we expect to release in the final product. Once that's available (hopefully soon!) then the release team will be very aggressive about ignoring bugs or removing packages. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?
Le Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 05:39:47PM +0100, Adeodato Simó a écrit : I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while ago. Hi Adeodato, this is an excellent idea! Although top-down approaches are not really in Debian culture, since the paragraph 5.9 of our constitution gives to the DPL the role of leading discussions amongst Developers I would not be shocked if Steve would decide of the order of the items on the page. I have added my pet issues… http://wiki.debian.org/DiscussionsAfterLenny?action=diffrev2=16rev1=15 * Allow redistributable but non-DFSG-free files in the Upstream sources of the main archive (but no in the binary packages of course). * [http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat Proposals/CopyrightFormat] * Brainwash the libgd maintainers to obtain the [http://bugs.debian.org/443654 removal of the -noxpm] packages (volunteer to do the transition: CharlesPlessy). * [http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/DebianMenuUsingDesktopEntries Proposals/DebianMenuUsingDesktopEntries] (volunteer to drive the discussion and the transition: CharlesPlessy) 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
Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 07:23:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: * Brainwash the libgd maintainers to obtain the [http://bugs.debian.org/443654 removal of the -noxpm] packages (volunteer to do the transition: CharlesPlessy). Save your soap/acid/whatever intended for such brainwash: Dependencies of X11-related libraries have now been fixed to no longer pull in excessive amounts of irrelevant packages when linking against libxpm, and I already intend to drop the noxpm flavor. After Lenny. Odd that you consider it big enough issue to discuss projectwide, but whatever... - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAklt7lgACgkQn7DbMsAkQLjYfQCfWIDJ7/4mBaHw5itjf/RMTb4S OOIAoJf1KowrLvu4GiLhlUj3IrB3/CIr =9uJs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous, and that his interpretation is based on his speculation on what he thinks the developers want. No, instead of whining and acusing people you should try to read emails without prejudice and accept that the result is what it is. Bdale's interpretation was based on the number of votes each option received. He actually did compare the results of each option with the results of the other options to get his interpretation. This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote. Well, we all know what/who helped making the vote ambigious. Guess what there are some people who don't accept the outcome of a vote even if it is not ambigious. Just to take away some possible misunderstanding, this holds for probably every vote ever held across the world. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread. ... That goes for you, too. I wonder how many consider this a serious discussion. Yes, Robert, you do, but who else? This is not to blame someone but a real question. If there really is a serious discussion we (as in: the people that d not think it is) should probably leave it alone. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) A VERY BIG +1 -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?
Hm. It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over the lists. I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it. So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list of these big issues we have to discuss, and trying to give them slots, as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO, having one or two (per-topic) people responsible for starting them, and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too. Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling: * membership in Debian (see below about this one). * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and Matthew Johnson express interest in this). * changes to the Social Contract (I'm not sure if this one is going to happen?). * code of conduct (Miriam Ruiz and Ben Armstrong would know about this). * release management, freezes, RC bugs and the whole lot (I'd appreciate if nobody beats the release team to this one). * more...? (if this scheduling goes forward, now would be a good time to speak). Thoughts? --- Regarding the Membership in Debian discussion, this has always been my idea of what could work well: * designing a person or very small group of people as the drivers of the discussion; these people would have their opinion, of course, but not an agenda, and should be trusted by the project, and particularly by the people who feel vocal about this discussion. .oO(good luck...) * these drivers receive, in private, well-written platforms of solutions that (many) interested people would give to the problem; they read and dissect them, and work with the senders to present to -project a fair summary of them, highlighting the points where there's consensus, and the points where there is not. * discussion happens in -project, and the drivers regularly distil it into summaries, trying to come up with the axis of a small and coherent handful of options in a possible future vote, and receiving feedback on these. * once the axis of each option are set, the main proponents of that option work out a text. (I realize this is not very polished, but I thought I'd try, because I'm tired of inefficient and endless discussions. I also have a couple names in mind of possible good drivers for this matter, but I haven't talked to them, and anyway it's leader@ who should, I believe. Bcc'ed.) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Will you just stand still? -- Luke Danes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan writes (Re: Results of the Lenny release GR): Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote. I don't like that we made an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no point in arguing about it. On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list. Are you able to see further than the end of your own nose ? Given the results of the ballots so far, what do you think would be the result of a vote to make an exception for the things you are now complaining about ? The answer of course is that once again they would decide against you. Similar results have been had in all the previous GRs. The point of voting is not just to decide on exactly the issue at hand. We're not supposed to vote on everything. Normal functional people are able to see when they are beaten and stop fighting, and a vote amongst the whole project is (or should be) the clearest way to demonstrate to someone that they are beaten. If you can't spot when you've lost a battle then we need to get rid of you. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?
Adeodato Simó writes (Scheduling project-wide post-lenny discussions?): It seems we have a number of projet-wide discussions that we've more or less agreed to postpone until lenny is out. I have a moderate fear that once that happens, they are going to explode (the discussions) all over the lists. Quite possibly. I suggested the creation of the DiscussionsAfterLenny wiki page a while ago, but that page is at the moment a bit of a mess. In particular, it's a dump of items without mentioning who's interested in having the discussion, and volunteering to starting and driving it. Right. So, I'm interested in knowing if people would be fine with making a list of these big issues we have to discuss, and trying to give them slots, as in putting them in some order that makes sense. Also, IMHO, having one or two (per-topic) people responsible for starting them, and trying to/ensuring they get somewhere, by appropriately fostering and summarizing the progress of the discussion, would be very good too. I think this is a good idea. Are you volunteering to maintain the wiki page, and post periodic summaries of the schedule and so on ? :-) Off the top of my head, these are some candidates for scheduling: ... * changes to the Constitution (I've read at least Steve Langasek and Matthew Johnson express interest in this). I think we need to get our GR procedures sorted before we tackle the others since the others may well involve GRs. We have a number of constitutional proposals: - Require Secretary to include position statement URLs in ballots - Require Secretary to assist people with ballot drafting and empower Secretary to briefly delay votes to do so - Increase GR quorum (various options) - Clarify who is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the SC - Fix TC supermajority off-by-one error - Increase TC maximum size Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Adeodato Simó wrote: * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan wrote: OTOH, if you just tell me to go elsewhere, I'm sorry but I don't want to look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles. The only one who works on destroying the project at the moment is *you*. Please don't continue until somebody asks for a vote to remove your from all lists or the whole project, I'm sure enough people would second that. Better go and fix your packages, that would be something useful you could help the project with. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. ... furthermore, as TC chair, Bdale is one of only two people in the project who are ineligible to be Secretary. He certainly has not accepted a temporary position as Secretary. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert, I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive proposal and actions post-lenny. As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any government as an organization) body. The 'consitution' and 'social contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by action or inaction. If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other developers. If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes sense then that is what sticks, regardless of what you think the 'rules' say. This isn't like 'real' world government where you take the government to court and force it to do something it doesn't want to do because of the constitution. The bodies that determine what the constitution means (DPL, CTTE(?), etc) are the people you trying to beat over the head with it. I'm not convinced you could even get seconds on a GR regarding this and even if you could all you would do is make the majority of the project (at best) irritated with you. I repeat, pick your battles (actually preferably find a cooperative way of achieving the same goal, say a month after lenny releases). This horse is dead; quit flogging it. -- And that's my crabbing done for the day. Got it out of the way early, now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or strangle cute bunnies or something. -- Michael Devore GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C http://gnupg.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Hi Mike, I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you try rephrasing it? Neil -- Ganneff Maulkin: there is no html tag Ganneff (yet? could be extended like Gannefffoo/Ganneff - Ganneff kills foo?) :) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these passages from the constitution are good for, then? The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers. (5.3) The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, [...] (6.3.6) The Project Secretary should make decisions which are fair and reasonable, and preferably consistent with the consensus of the Developers. (7.3) Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion. (8.3) Yes, the constitution says the release team should let itself be guided by consensus opinion. It doesn't say that a vote is necessary to establish this. As Russ Allbery pointed out, the constitution also tells you what you can do if you think the release team is doing the wrong thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything. In the majority of instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the option of overriding or recalling them if they don't. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it, your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this? Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind? How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the last? Please hurt another project, not Debian, we had enough of this already. It is true that the project wants to release. It is not true that the project wants to release on just any terms whatsoever. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) Sure, how about a deal. Lenny will be the *last* release with this non-DFSG stuff, and we'll go away for this one. I thought that was the deal last time, but it turns out that just this once is repeated in Debian about as often as copyright extension bills in the US Congress. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of desire by the voters that we release Lenny. Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a good one. That means we don't release until it's ready--which in my view includes DFSG bugs just as much as other RC bugs. The option that won the vote does not say release Lenny no matter what, it says, release Lenny, not looking to carefully at DFSG problems in firmware blobs, more or less. It was a carefully worded option, and it won; it is a mistake to substitute for it something like release Lenny no matter what, and then to proceed to ignore the clear statement of the winning option that *only* firmware blobs get the special treatment. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote: Robert Millan wrote: - Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned. Not doing so creates a very bad precedent. You think everyone must be voted on? Everything significant, yes. Because I believe in democracy. Democracy doesn't mean voting on everything. That's why I said everything significant. Compromising on our core principles is one of the things I consider significant. In the majority of instances it means 'let the elected officials and those to whom they have delegated make the decisions we have elected them to make'. You elect someone because you trust them to act in your interests with the option of overriding or recalling them if they don't. I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help you or anybody. I don't see how even option 1 would have delayed Lenny. I just see that it would have forced a few patches to be applied. But we got option 5 instead. You claim this has delayed Lenny. Please explain how. It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last issue. Please drop it for now. You're writing with the assumption that fixing DFSG violations is fundamentally incompatible with releasing Lenny soon. I can see that this could be true for some cases, where critical functionality is affected, but for most of them (including firmware) I don't see any correlation. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread. Thanks in advance -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't like it. I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. Priceless. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpqd6oJvCkzw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: [...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not going to be adopted at present. There's nothing to be adopted. The project as a whole thinks of the Social Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with that doesn't change things. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous, and that his interpretation is based on his speculation on what he thinks the developers want. This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread. Priceless. That goes for you, too. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. I disagree completely. The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitution currently says. 4 would have granted more sweeping powers if it had passed, but that doesn't change the current situation or the fact that the release team has the power to make this decision unless a developer override passes. Several of us pointed this out during the vote. As stated previously, I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of the constitution, but neither of us are going to change each other's mind and the people who are in a position to do something about it don't appear to agree with your interpretation. Attempting to read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable, given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional interpretation at all. (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement would be non-binding anyway, although had one passed even with a simple majority I expect most developers would give it a great deal of weight.) I am not claiming that the vote supports my position either. It doesn't provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend time worrying about the licensing of firmware. The winning option in the vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before the GR began. This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; it combined multiple issues and the available options didn't each cover all the issues being voted on. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. This is not true. The constitution specifies that when there is no Secretary, the chair of the Technical Committee serves as Acting Secretary. To refuse the post of Acting Secretary, Bdale would have to step down as TC chair. This doesn't change anything. When he accepted his position as TC chair, he was accepting that he could become Acting Secretary under certain circumstances. It's not like he was blackmailed to become Secretary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote: As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any government as an organization) body. The 'consitution' and 'social contract' exist only insofar as the developers agree they do, either by action or inaction. Agreed. If you want to argue constutional matters in debian you have to make sure you're not just making noise but are in fact supported other developers. Indeed. If most developers think that Bdale's interpretation makes sense Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this interpretation are the ones making the most noise. If you want to know for real, check the vote results. You'll see how option 2 beats option 4. And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as necessary. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:29:41AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote: Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Hi Mike, I've read this a few times, and still can't understand it. Could you try rephrasing it? I found it pretty easy to understand; I wonder what's causing you trouble. I'll try rephrasing Mike's words: Mike Bird, rephrased by Ben Finney: | Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level | of careful analysis of this issue. | | Robert Millan has at times come close to Manoj's level of careful | analysis of this issue. But the non-existent cabal apparently | hates him as much as they hated Manoj. | | This hatred is evident because the responses to Robert's questions | are mostly insults and personal attacks, of a type that would | cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. Does that help? -- \ “Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather | `\ straps.” —Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote: Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this interpretation are the ones making the most noise. Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the number of posts from anybody else? Could you also please count the number of people actively supporting your position and compare that to the number of people you can expect to be following this discussion? I think it is safe to assume in this case that the silent majority does indeed support the interpretation set out by the acting Secretary. Please give it up, or at the very least STOP spamming the mailing lists by replying to each and every post. Make your point once, and make it well. The endless repetition is getting tiresome. Please limit the number of posts you send in a day to a maximum of 2 or 3. I do have some sympathy for your position (though from a totally different perspective and totally different reasons), but you really are on a crusade that is never going to go anywhere. Cheers, FJP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4. I disagree completely. The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the constitution currently says. You mean what it says, or ... I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of the constitution, ... your interpretation of what it says? Attempting to read a project position about the interpretation of the constitution into this vote is stretching its implications far beyond what is supportable, given that the text of the options didn't address constitutional interpretation at all. No, but it's very clear about developers preferring the option that doesn't gives this power to the RT over the option that does. (Without a 3:1 majority, such a position statement would be non-binding anyway, Interesting to see 3:1 come back. One of the most annoying things about super-majority requirements is that they appear and disappear depending on the position one is holding. That's why I would very much like to get rid of them. So I take it you didn't agree with Manoj's decision to set super-majority requirements in the ballot? It doesn't provide any clarity at all, except that the project wants us to not spend time worrying about the licensing of firmware. Results are clear for me. You'll notice that I'm not complaining about firmware right now. But the same goes both ways: people should accept the results when it comes to non-firmware. The winning option in the vote says nothing one way or the other about the non-firmware licensing issues, which means that we're in the same position that we were in before the GR began. Technically yes, but politically the situation is much different. The developers had a number of options that explicitly granted more exceptions, and they preferred the one that didn't. This tells us something about what the majority of us wants, and you shouldn't neglect it. Of course, you can object that it wasn't an explicit assertion, etc, but from general consensus to explicit assertion there's only one small step. Keep that in mind. This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (12/01/2009): And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as long as necessary. We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. Bdale, After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here. So please bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less serious problem, but at least more sympathethic. I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making tough decisions, and being responsible for them. You decided that the ballot was good enough to be voted on; you could have cancelled the vote, or you could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you didn't. Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the ballot myself. However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results, what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and badly worded. You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a significant part of it, but that doesn't matter: you already decided the ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound to your own decision. So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the ballot. I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of not doing anything, you have my support on that. I don't usually participate in these discussions (so I can be considered a member of the silent majority), but this thread has been going on for long enough for me to want to voice my opinion. Personally, I'm happy with Bdale's interpretation of the vote, and I think that you need to make peace with the fact that vast majority of developers is more pragmatic than you, when it comes to DFSG compliance and interpretation. As such, I would be happy to see us proceed with Lenny release based on the results of the vote. If this is not acceptable for you, as a developer you are entitled to affect this outcome using a number of different options available (and I'm not talking about trying to convince anyone by repeating the same thing over and over). Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov ju...@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote: This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed; Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it. The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be cancelled. So Bdale has let it run knowing that the conclusions that could be drawn would be limited anyway. Now please stop flooding the list and get back to something more productive. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it, your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this? Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind? How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the last? Please hurt another project, not Debian, we had enough of this already. -- bye, Joerg snooze02 sind jabber und icq 2 unterschiedliche netzwerke ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) -- bye, Joerg Some NM: graphviz: ouch, that license is hard to read, damn lawyer gibberish. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. I keep hearing this SC is not binding story, as if repeating it lots of times made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is the one that represents this line of reasoning. If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate vote. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) We can talk about that, yes. I don't think right before a release is the best time to go through all this mess, but alas we already started, and believe it or not, it wasn't my choice. Please let me ellaborate. I think the reason this happened is that although most of these bugs were filed ages ago, nothing was done about them untill it became clear that the Release Team planned to include them in Lenny without asking for an exception (like happened for Sarge Etch). All this could have been avoided if we started talking about the bugs earlier (from a constructive POV rather than just flaming), so let's talk about the bugs shall we? The way I see it, there are 5 cathegories: 1- Firmware in Linux. We already made an exception for these. But it's not clear what the maintainers plan to do after Lenny is released, and it's not clear what the FTP team will do about it either. 2- Long-standing bugs in critical components for which a fix is expected to arrive soon. This includes things like SunRPC, GLX, and even Nvidia obfuscation (#383465). It's not unreasonable to expect the developers would support an exception. Heck, maybe even I would. But none of this _has happened yet_. 3- Non-bugs (IMHO), that'd be the trademark issue in #391935. 4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text file), #483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed according to the maintainer) or #509287 (just move afio to non-free). Why isn't the FTP team enforcing these? 5- Bugs which aren't easy to fix. AFAICS this includes ONLY TWO of them: #477060 and #498475 (aka #498476). Maybe it's worth making an exception for them, but again this is something that should be judged by the project as a whole. This needs proper discussion IMHO. Maybe even a vote. So, if you could tell me that there's going to be a proper solution for #1 and #4, all that's left to do is have a vote to device what we do about #2 (which almost certainly will be exempted) and #5 (which is likely to be exempted too). OTOH, if you just tell me to go elsewhere, I'm sorry but I don't want to look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org — Oh, George, you didn't jump into the river. How sensible of you! -- Mrs Banks in “Mary Poppins” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said: * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just after a release, rather than just before. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. If you can't understand the Please postpone the bikeshedding after the lenny release so that you'll have proper answers-bit then I can nothing for you. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgplbWzGCXvO9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. +1, seconded too. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team, with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just after a release, rather than just before. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. If you can't understand the Please postpone the bikeshedding after the lenny release so that you'll have proper answers-bit then I can nothing for you. Absolutely. If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help you or anybody. It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last issue. Please drop it for now. -- Steve McIntyre, Debian Project Leader lea...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
- Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team, with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. It is clear enough that, recently, Manoj was the roadblock to release because he was the primary consitutionally empowered person that was pushing us to honor the Social Contract, honor the consitution and its majority requirements and generally follow procedure. Now that Bdale is the acting Secretary there should be no further resistance to releasing Lenny. I think you will find that Bdale's intrepretation is going to stick. Just a hunch on my part but I'm a gambling man. Do not take this as an expression of distaste on my part. There are no enemies here, just people disagreeing passionately. Passion is good, we just need to channel it properly. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't like it. I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. ACK, I wasn't formally proposing a vote. I could've been more clear about that, but I tend to forget things may not always be as obvious on the other side of the screen. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: David Bowie - John, I'm only dancing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
- Russ Allbery wrote: If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for another GR unless you want one. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: - Russ Allbery wrote: If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for another GR unless you want one. I'm not entirely sure how to take this response. If you're trying to say that I shouldn't have written the above paragraph, I beg to differ. One of the problems with this whole mess from the start, as far as I'm concerned, has been a lack of clarity around what the outcomes are, what actions accomplish something, and what actions don't. My participation in these threads, such as it is, has mostly been aiming for additional clarity on exactly what actions are possible and what they mean so that people can understand the outcome and make informed decisions about what they want to do. I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the word GR out of a fear that to mention it will be to invoke it. We're all adults. We all know the situation, we all know that another GR at this point on this topic may cause harm to the project, and we all know that people are feeling fatigue. I think it's worthwhile to be very clear about what's happening and what actions would be required if one wanted to stop it precisely *because* of that. Otherwise we risk drifting sideways into a situation that would have been avoidable if we'd known the consequences going in. If Robert feels this point is so important that he's willing to propose another GR to stop the release, my refusal to mention the term GR isn't going to stop him. Whether he does or not is a decision that only he can make. I think it's worthwhile being extremely blunt about this at this point. Robert isn't happy with how the outcome is being interpreted. I understand and respect his disagreement with me over my contitutional interpretation. However, just as that disagreement didn't cause him to change his mind, neither has it caused me to change my mind. I think that it's clear from subsequent discussion that there's enough agreement with either my interpretation, with Bdale's alternate way of arriving at a similar conclusion, or with a feeling that we should postpone this issue for now regardless, that Robert's constitutional interpretation is not going to be adopted at present. I think that was clear even before the outcome of the vote. In the realm of debian-vote, he therefore has a choice (as do those who agree with his interpretation). He can either propose another GR to have the project adopt his interpretation via a delegate override, he can let it go for the time being and bring it up again later, or he can let it go entirely. (Obviously he has other possible actions outside of debian-vote, such as fixing or helping to fix the bugs with which he's concerned, but that's outside the scope of the point I'm making.) We do ourselves no favors by not being forthright about the possibilities. It's clear that we don't have consensus, so having another extended discussion about how we don't have consensus just creates more hurt feelings and animosities. If I were absolutely convinced that the project was going off in a very bad direction on this topic, the strongest argument that I'd see against proposing another GR right now is that it's a *tactically* horrible idea. Another GR right now is likely to be soundly defeated *regardless* of the project's opinion as a whole on the constitutional question. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. I keep hearing this SC is not binding story, as if repeating it lots of times made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is the one that represents this line of reasoning. If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate vote. I challenge you to do something useful for the project instead of dragging us down with voting nonsense. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. Bdale, After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here. So please bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less serious problem, but at least more sympathethic. I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making tough decisions, and being responsible for them. You decided that the ballot was good enough to be voted on; you could have cancelled the vote, or you could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you didn't. Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the ballot myself. However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results, what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and badly worded. You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a significant part of it, but that doesn't matter: you already decided the ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound to your own decision. So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the ballot. I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of not doing anything, you have my support on that. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)
[ Moving the discussion to -project. Please do remember to drop -vote from the recipients list if you follow up. ] On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:09:52AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian (I assume that was a typo for lawyerish.) For the record, I am offended by this description (not so much the reference to lawyering, though I'm sure you intended it as an insult, but that you seem to think I interpret the bug reports I receive in a lawyer-like fashion). It was not meant as an insult. I wanted to tell that the comparisons you made to countries/institutions and the like do not help resolving our issue because we do not face the same problems and don't have the same objectives. That is not, however, what you wrote (and I don't see how one can get from lawyers to comparisons to countries). (And I don't think the message your comment was a response to contained any comparisons to countries.) I certainly agree that trying to model Debian as a sovereign state is futile, for much the reasons you outline. I may have made that mistake a couple of times when I was younger - I seem to recall having made enthusiastic comments along those lines years ago - but not recently, I believe. In fact, whenever I see that sort of argumentation from someone else, I wince. At the same time, I don't think it is useful to avoid all analogues to the institutes of a country. Any such analogue will, of course, have to be justified by the situation at hand. If I notice that Debian, in my opinion, needs an arbitration body that needs to decide on Official Facts and Official Interpretation of some ratified text, I will look at the courts of law of various countries for inspiration on how they might be organized, simply because they are vast reservoirs of experience. Similarly, when our Constitution gives the Secretary constitutional adjudication powers, I feel it is not only possible but *useful* to tag those powers as judicial powers (and apply to them judicial standards) - with no intention on my part to impose a governmental structure on the rest of it. The constitution should really be clear so that interpretation is almost never needed. That, unfortunately, is not possible. Certainly any ambiguities that have been caused actual trouble should be plugged, either by changing the text or by establishing clear (and respected) precedents, but you can't produce a document that is at the same time clear and unambiguous. Even if you somehow manage to come up with a text of the Constitution that is for all intents and purposes clear and unambiguous, someone will trot out, given sufficient reason, a tenuous misinterpretation to support their cause. Most of the time, that someone will be a loner, and laughing at them will be quite sufficient, but there may come a time that their cause is shared by a significant portion of the developers, or simply few developers with sufficient clout, and they may decide to pretend the misinterpretation actually had any merit[*]. In such a case, you need some mechanism for slapping them down - a constitutional arbitration body, or an Oracle as I have described it in this discussion. [*] I'm sure people on both sides of the recent events might, at least on bad days, claim that this is actually what happened late last year - with the *other* side being the bad guys. A constitutional interpretation, no matter how well the original document was written, will remain unchalleged only while there is no acrimony within the developers. But then again, who needs a constitution when we all agree anyway? (In other words, the supreme rule of writing contracts - assume that the nice guy sitting on the other side of the table get hit by a bus tomorrow and their inheritors will be of the worst possible kind, and write the contract to withstand that catastrophe - applies, mutatis mutandis, to writing the constitutions of non-governmental organisations like Debian. Except that, unlike most NGOs and most contracts, we don't have any practical recourse in Debian's matters to any court of law backed by some sovereign state.) We should fix the constitution so that we can leave the duty of interpreting the constitution to the secretary. We just need to make it clear that the secretary doesn't have to interpret the foundation documents to handle his secretarial work and that he must apply 3:1 ratio based on what the GR says (explicit supersession or not) and not on what he believes it means in practice. I do not think that is a good idea. All interpretation ought to be based on the actual situation, not on rules-lawyering like it doesn't explicitly say it, therefore it isn't. If you don't trust the Secretary to interpret the facts correctly, then don't empower him to make the decision. Even dropping the supermajority requirements altogether (Ian's option A) would be better. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho,
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 04:54:25PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay! Details of the outcome and how various options were voted are available at http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 The winning option was number 5, Assume blobs comply with GPL unless proven otherwise, the full text of which is appended below. Since the election concluded, several developers have asked for some statement from the DPL and/or Secretary as to what this result really means. Steve and I have discussed it, and we think it's pretty clear. This result means that the Debian Lenny release can proceed as the release team has intended, with the kernel packages currently in the archive. Hi Bdale, What the release team intended (at least before the vote), as represented by lenny-ignore tags is to skip more DFSG violations than just kernel packages, see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211765 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=368559 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=424957 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=391935 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=459705 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=382175 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=509287 However, your announcement seems to assume these only concerned kernel packages. This leaves the message open to interpretation, it could mean any of the following: - You assume the release team no longer intends to ignore DFSG violations for these packages. - The RT gets an exception for kernel packages, as they intended, but not for the rest of Debian. - The developers are implicitly endorsing an exception for the rest of Debian packages. Please, could you send a new message clarifiing the situation, and your judgement as Secretary? Thanks! -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
