Re: A question for all candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Rune B. Broberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-26 14:27]:
> Only one person can 'win' this election, meaning we'll have 3
> candidates remaining after this election. How will not getting
> elected affect your work within Debian, and the goals you stated in
> your platforms?

As I said in my platform, I think there are many tasks one can do
without being DPL or being in any other recognized position.  However,
I also want to stress that being DPL would allow me to do the things I
plan to do more effectively.  Also, it would show me that the project
actually thinks that the tasks I listed in my platform are important,
and that the project stands behind what I'm doing.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Questions to all candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-28 12:09]:
> > When the Social Contract was originally drafted, the title "Our
> > Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" was meant to strike a
> > balance between meeting the needs of those who would use Debian and
> > the idealism of the Free Software movement that we emerged from.
> 
> Do you agree above understanding of "Debian History"?  (Bdale: skip this)
>  [X] Yes
>  [ ] No
>  [ ] I do not know / No comment
> Comment:

Yes, I agree this was the case when the SC was drafted.  However, I
also agree with Branden that there is not fundamental tension between
the neews of our users and Free Software.

> > The most concrete example of this balance is the existence of non-free.
> 
> Do you agree above understanding of "Debian History"?  (Bdale: skip this)
>  [X] Yes (even if you want to change current situation in near future.)
>  [ ] No
>  [ ] I do not know / No comment
> Comment:

non-free was important for some users because there were no good
alternatives available.  This is slowly changing, however.

> What shall be done if there is a conflict between "user" and "freedom".
> 
>  [X] Freedom rules!
>  [ ] User rules! (I hope no one picks this.)
>  [ ] I do not know / No comment
>  [X] Seek amicable compromise
> Comment:

We should try to achieve a compromise, but in the end, we should
preserve our freedom and that of our users.

> Do you think we need to change situation over non-free?
> 
>  [ ] Yes (Within the next DPL term)
>  [ ] Yes (Timeline is flexible)
>  [ ] Yes (After the next DPL term)
>  [ ] No
>  [X] I do not know / No comment
> Comment:

I used to think that non-free should be removed.  Nowadays, I tend to
think it's ok to just let it die off slowly... moving non-free to a
different archive outside of Debian and mainting a separate archive is
very much work; and our current ftp-masters seen not to mind
maintaining non-free as part of the current archive... Actually, I
think it's quite funny that no one in the non-free debate has actually
bothered to ask those who are involved about their opinion (especially
the ftp-masters, but also QA people -- they have to deal with non-free
issues, even if they might not care).

> Do you think DPL needs to place its leadership to steer Debian on this
> issue?
> 
>  [ ] Yes (It is within DPL's scope of responsibility)
>  [X] No  (It is not within DPL's scope of responsibility)
>  [ ] I do not know / No comment
> Comment:

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Questions for the candidates

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-06 20:53]:
>  - Debian did have stronger ties to the FSF in the past. Maybe it is
>time to think about our relationsship with the FSF and try to
>cooperate/communicate more with the FSF in places where it might be

Yes, I'd certainly like to see more cooperationg with the FSF (and
other organizations, for that matter).  In fact, many informal
cooperative efforts have been made recently.  For example, Paul Eggert
(of GNU tag, gzip, bison and many other tools fame) follows the Debian
BTS.  When he prepares new upstream releases, he tries to fix bugs
reported in the BTS and then actually sends the Debian maintainer a
listing of bugs he has fixed.  That's really great.  OTOH, the GNU
people also benefit from our great BTS and from our testings efforts.
Furthermore, I've recently worked with RMS to track down an inactive
maintainer... so there is some cooperation going on, but I'd certainly
see more of it, especially on a more formalized level.

>  - The Linux Standard Base is an important effort for the future of
>Linux IMHO. I consider it important that we are as compliant as
>possible, without giving up our identity. This would probably mean

Yes, I certainly think that being LSB compliant is important.  Please
see my answer to a similar question during the IRC debate.

>  - Inclusion of NetBSD (or any other BSD) and the Hurd need cooperation
>between the respective developers, the archive maintainers and the
>dpkg authers, as far as I can tell. Especially for the Hurd, my

I was amazed at FOSDEM to see how far Debian NetBSD is already.  I
thought Hurd has quite a few upstream issues before it can be
considered for release; however, I must admit that I'm not current on
what's going on there... but my impression is that they need more
hardware support, eliminate the partition size limitation, etc before
they should release.  I'd also like to see the port to L4 happen, but
I don't know how fast this is going to happen.

>  - There are quite a few developers who are either MIA or left the
>project for various reasons in the past. In some cases the situation
>might have changed in the meantime and it might be worth trying to
>reinvite them into the project, but I wouldn't know which delegate
>would be responsible for something like this.

Some developers who have left the project have recently been re-invited
by the the keyring maintainer and are not back.  Inactive developers
who re-appear generally don't have to go through NM but can simply
send their signed key to the keyring maintainer.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Please announce the IRC debate on debian-devel-announce

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-07 09:19]:
> 1.- Do you think that translators, people involved in i18n, and
> people involved in documentation-only work should be given
> maintainer status even though they are not going to maintain
> packages or infrastructure? How should the NM process be modified in
> order to provide for this?

This is a tough question.  The problem is that once you're a
developer, you can also upload packages and some translators or
documentation people might not have the abilities for that.  The easy
solution to create a seperate keyring sound easy, but isn't when you
think about it... it would introduce a tier-system in Debian in which
some developers are more equal than others... it's not clear whether
we want to go there.

> 2.- Do you believe Debian has to actively look for business partners
> in order to be "certified" as part of broader IT solutions? What

Yes, in fact, I have addressed exactly this point in my platform.

> 3.- What do you believe the involvement of the Technical Comitee
> should be wrt fundamental differents in developers or major issues
> which hold back the development of the distribution as a whole? Do
> you view the Technical Comitee work as an active role (i.e. urging
> for things to be done or asking resources coming from the NM queue
> to cooperate in things lacking instead of making their pet projects)
> or as a passive role (i.e. endpoint of discussions between
> developers in the BTS when no agreement is reached)

I think the Technical Commitee has a passive role right now... should
this change or not?  I'm not sure, but I think it might be good if the
developers community as a whole has an active and the TC a passive
role.

> 4.- What is the number one thing you will take an active role as DPL
> to fix in the Debian distribution? (not the project) What actions
> would you take, if elected, to fix it?

The release process.  I will actively work with the Release Manager to
see how he can be assisted in his work by others.  In fact, Anthony
has just asked for Release Assistants... I'd try to follow up with
this and get more people involved (c.f. my "mini-RM" remark in my
platform).

> 5.- What is your standpoint in Debian vs. the others? In which areas
> do you think Debian should cooperate with other distributions? (save

I think we should try to cooperate with them as much as possible.
Commercial or not, we are all about Free Software after all (some
more, some less, but the main parts of most distributions are Free).

> 6.- What would you, as a DPL, do to help improve areas in which
> developers are not that much willing to contribute to and which are
> usually lacking?  (for example: documentation)

It's quite hard to motivate people to do this, but I'd try.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Questions to all candidates

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:12:04PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > What shall be done if there is a conflict between "user" and "freedom".
> >  [X] Freedom rules!
> >  [ ] User rules! (I hope no one picks this.)
> >  [X] Seek amicable compromise
> We should try to achieve a compromise, but in the end, we should
> preserve our freedom and that of our users.

I've got to say that I find this pretty disconcerting. Our priorities
are our users and free software -- how can we possibly hope to *never*
under any circumstances be focussing primarily on the good of our users?

I realise everyone's going to immediately justify this as "but freedom's
good for our users", and not think about this at all anymore, but what
the hell, I'll go on anyway.

Personally, I think freedom's only good *because* it serves our users
needs, and that that's the only way to judge what's "free" and what's not.
Likewise, I personally don't think we should be worrying about some
indistinct principle to the detriment of real live people [0].

Some examples of where conflict might or do occur:

* Distributing non-free software at all
* Distributing non-free software on the main Debian ftp site
* Allowing BSD w/ advertising clause software into main
* Allowing the GFDL, AGPL, RPSL into main
* Allowing unmodifiable standards documents into main
* Distributing GFDL, AGPL, RPSL licensed stuff at all
* Distributing unmodifiable standards documents at all
* Disputes about freeness where software's already in the archive 
  and being used

There are probably others -- that disputes come up rarely shows that our
priorities are largely mutually supportive; but instinctively resolving
all the above without regard to supporting our users does not strike me
as a remotely good thing.

Which isn't to say that that's what any of the canidates will actually
do, but it's very close to what the above is leaning towards.

Cheers,
aj

[0] Note that this is what *I* think, not necessarily what Debian thinks.
Debian ranks free software as a goal in and of itself, that does
not need to be justified.

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpiHt7rhX3y4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Please announce the IRC debate on debian-devel-announce

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:45:36PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-07 09:19]:
> > 1.- Do you think that translators, people involved in i18n, and
> > people involved in documentation-only work should be given
> > maintainer status even though they are not going to maintain
> > packages or infrastructure? How should the NM process be modified in
> > order to provide for this?
> 
> This is a tough question.  The problem is that once you're a
> developer, you can also upload packages and some translators or
> documentation people might not have the abilities for that.  The easy
> solution to create a seperate keyring sound easy, but isn't when you
> think about it... it would introduce a tier-system in Debian in which
> some developers are more equal than others... it's not clear whether
> we want to go there.

One way of doing this would be to limit everyone equally. We could
modify the upload process so that all developers are allowed to upload
only their packages, and have some sort of check or delay or whatever
for doing NMUs. Alternatively, there could be 'groups' of package for
which additional uploaders can be admitted, because we know they have
the skill for it. This would have every developper at the same level,
and would need to get a sort of certification for uploading various kind
of packages (libraries, perl packages, security sensitive, base, etc.).
This would also pave the way for more cooperative maintenance of group
of packages or something such, an extension of co-maintainership if you
want.

As an example, i maintain the ocaml and related packages. There are
other maintainers working on packages based on ocaml, and if i need a
NMU of one of my packages, i will ask one of those to do it on the
debian-ocaml-maint mailing list, since i know they know about the
packages more than a random developper who has no idea what ocaml is
about.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > > > showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
> > > 
> > > Incorrect; I listened, though I disagreed.
> > 
> > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> > 
> > (some examples would be ideal here, but I don't have any).
> > 
> > (not my observation, just my interpretation of both the comments above,
> > perhaps taken out of context).
> 
> Well, I don't think that's a fair statement.  I corresponded in a fairly
> detailed manner Osamu Aoki regarding bug #168347, for example.

Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

Please think about it next time when you claim to support efforts like
debian-desktop subproject.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Wie man durch Beisammensein fortliebt unter der Rinde die Frau, so
auch den Freund; nur die Unterbrechung zeigt uns, wie so stark wir
lieben.
-- Jean Paul

Re: A question for all candidates

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:02:09PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

 > Also, it would show me that the project actually thinks that the
 > tasks I listed in my platform are important, and that the project
 > stands behind what I'm doing.

 I must have missed the memo.  Since when does this project work like
 that?  Last time I checked, the way we do a lot of the things you
 mention in your platform was by rolling up your sleeves and start
 working.  If "the project actually thinks that the task [you are doing]
 are important" people join you in your effort.  For example:

 * "First, I think there are several problems with the sponsorship
   system.  There is no listing of sponsored people and hence it is
   quite hard to keep track of them."

   Obviously good and obviously backed up by QA people.  No need
   whatsoever to be DPL to get this going.

 * "Second, I will re-introduce the New Maintainer postings."

   Obviously backed up by several people.  More than once people have
   asked what happened with this.  No need to DPL status either.  Only a
   good working relationship with the NM admin people is needed.  If DPL
   status is required for that, we might as well pack our stuff and go
   home.

 * "Third, I intend to put more focus on inactive developers."

   I'm starting to sound like a broken record.  Again, certainly backed
   up by QA people.

 * "The web site is too impersonal" (bug#76187)

   Why would anyone need to run for DPL to get such a thing done?  This
   is examplary of "roll up your sleeves and do it".

 As you put it yourself "as DPL, I will encourage similar efforts. You
 don't have to be DPL to get things done."  Exactly.  That's the way
 this project works.

 On the rest of the section entitled "internal functions" you resort to
 hand waving arguments revolving arround the idea of "face to face
 contact", which might or might not be a really good thing.  My personal
 impression from your platform is that you take that imagery of "the
 fearless leader" too seriously.  That kind of leader, the one that's
 cheered up by the masses when he makes personal appearences, is surely
 a good thing for fun (and therefore motivational) value, but that's
 rarely the kind of leader that gets to office by means of a vote.

 If I had to write an abstract for your platform, it would include the
 phrase "personal contact is the basis for good teamwork", since that's,
 after a couple of readings, the meat of your argument.

 In short, I'm still missing the answer to "what would make Michlmayr a
 better D*PL* than Bdale or Branden?"  (No, I didn't forget Moshe)

 Cheers,

-- 
Marcelo

Re: Vote of a former candidate

[Raphael Hertzog]

Le Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 12:31:25AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog écrivait:
> Hello,
> 
> since several people sollicited me to represent myself this year and
> since I didn't want to run again for DPL, I'd like to make my vote
> public. That way people who voted for me last year can decide to follow
> my vote if they don't have any other strong opinion about the
> candidates.
> 
> My vote will be :
> 1. Martin Michlmayr
> 2. Bdale Garbee
> 3. None of the above

Just a precision, the fact that Branden and Moshe are ranked below "None
of the above" doesn't show any animosity of my part against them. It
just means that in my opinion they wouldn't do good leaders because
their platforms do not match my view of Debian. I just follow the logic
of the voting mechanism.

[ I'm posting this message since a so-called Overfiend looked like
  a bit disappointed by myself on #d-d ;-) ]

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

Again, demonstrably untrue:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg00689.html

Marcelo Magallon also disagreed with Osamu Aoki's proposed patch; does
that mean he also "ignored the proposal completely"?

Doing nothing is the right answer if the only clear alternative is doing
the wrong thing.  I feel having the Xsession script register itself as
an "x-session-manager" is the wrong technical solution, and I explained
why.

> Please think about it next time when you claim to support efforts like
> debian-desktop subproject.

Because I did not acquiesce to your will on a specific technical issue,
I oppose the debian-desktop subproject?

It would be most refreshing if you would conduct a conversation without
resorting to the most blatant of logical fallacies.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be
Debian GNU/Linux   | redeemed.  God loves us, so He
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore


pgpBBLkRJ51hQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Vote of a former candidate

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Just a precision, the fact that Branden and Moshe are ranked below "None
> of the above" doesn't show any animosity of my part against them. It
> just means that in my opinion they wouldn't do good leaders because
> their platforms do not match my view of Debian. I just follow the logic
> of the voting mechanism.
> 
> [ I'm posting this message since a so-called Overfiend looked like
>   a bit disappointed by myself on #d-d ;-) ]

I'm generally of the opinion that remarks made on IRC should be rebutted
on IRC, and not elsewhere, but to be specific, my grouse was that your
critique of my platform was facile.

> While Branden improved much his behavior during the last year,

Just FYI, it's difficult to read this as anything but a backhanded
compliment, which runs counter to your thesis of "not showing any
animosity".  How you *you* take it if I said, "Rapha?l has improved much
his Frenchness during the last year."?  I'm not even sure what that
*means*, but I'd be willing to bet five bucks that your first impression
would be that it was an insult of some sort.  ;-)

> I think he expects too much from the delegation mechanism ... the
> failure of the technical committee shows that giving official titles
> to people doesn't make them work on what they are supposed to do.

This is the more substantive point.  However, you seem to be completely
ignoring the fact that I've proposed doing must more than just "giving
official titles to people".

Let's review my platform for some of the other aspects of delegation I
discussed:

  * "The DPL must also follow up with the delegates, and ensure that
they understand their responsibilities; not just so that they know
what is required of them, but so that they know what is not required
of them."

  * "As a first approximation, I believe there should be a webpage on
the Debian site specifically dedicated to DPL delegates: it should
enumerate them, describe each one's responsibilities, state the date
each one's term began, and provide a link to each delegate (or
team's) webpage where they can post news and status information,
where applicable. Delegates should be directly involved in
establishing their own standards and responsibilities; this is not
only more fair to volunteers, but this should also serve to get the
DPL and the delegate off to a good start in having open channels of
communication. The best goals are those we are free to set for
ourselves. While the DPL cannot single-handedly ensure that
everyone's goals are met, he or she can at least develop a strong
knowledge of the Project's strong and weak points in the delegation
structure, and solicit volunteers to reinforce the weak points."

  http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/platforms/branden

This is far more involved that just "giving official titles to people".

It includes:

  1) following up with delegates
  2) ensuring the delegates understand their responsibilities
  3) public enumeration of all delegate positions and who holds them
  4) public notice of when each delegate began his or her term
  5) centralize reference point for delegate status reports
  6) delegates work with DPL to define their own standards and scope of
 responsibilities
  7) the DPL staying on top of how each delegate is doing his or her
 job, so that he knows when a position could use assistance
  8) solicitation of additional or replacement volunteers for delegate
 positions that aren't meeting the standards in 6)

All these points are a very simple restatement of language that is
already in my platform.

To conclude, it appears that you issued your critique of my platform
without having even read it, or without having read it very carefully.
Your statements could be very misleading to other voters, and this is
why I encourage everyone to do his or her own research before casting a
ballot; consciously or not, other people's characterizations of a
candidate or his views can be quite distorted.

Whether your remarks were motivated by a personal animus is likewise
something that each person is going to have to decide for him- or
herself; I don't think bare assertions one way or the other are very
persuasive.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


pgpxRAw8AMHFl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Brian May]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include 
> * Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think that's a fair statement.  I corresponded in a fairly
> > detailed manner Osamu Aoki regarding bug #168347, for example.
> 
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and

(I can't comment on this; unless it is your proposal in bug #168347)

> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

This doesn't support the hypothesis that Branden doesn't demonstrate
that he has listened.

Rather it supports what Branden said earlier that he doesn't always
agree with you.

...and if the DPL always agreed with everything I said, I think I would
be rather suspicious of that DPL[1]...

(some people seem to think "listen" and "agree" are the same word; they
are not).

Notes:
[1] Unless of course I was the one offering the bribes ;-).
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Branden's cryptic advice

[Richard Braakman]

Branden Robinson ended his part of the 2003 DPL debate with this message:

I'd like everybody to make as informed a decision as they can when
voting, and to please exercise their franchise.  Only you can make
the system work.

At this point, various non-native English speakers may be left wondering,
  What's a franchise?
  Why does Branden think that mine needs exercise?
  Do I even HAVE a franchise?
  Is it big and hairy?

To clear up the confusion, I did some research.  According to
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (the true geek's
dictionary), "franchise" is derived from French "franc" or "franche",
meaning free.  That's certainly in the spirit of Debian.  The
dictionary also adds: See {Frank}.

Looking up "Frank", we find "A pigsty" as the first definition.
Slightly surprising, but maybe it's a comment on the project's
current lack of organization.  More likely, the definition we
want is further down: "unbounded by restrictions, limitations,
etc.; free".  Its etymology is telling.  It's listed as from
French "franc", meaning free; from Latin "Francus", meaning a
Frank; and from German "Franko", "the name of a Germanic people
on the Rhine, who afterward founded the French monarchy".

In other words, the Fiend was telling us to be more French.

It's a strange world.

-- 
Richard Braakman
  to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction
  between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.

Re: Please announce the IRC debate on debian-devel-announce

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:45:36PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-03-07 09:19]:
> > 1.- Do you think that translators, people involved in i18n, and
> > people involved in documentation-only work should be given
> > maintainer status even though they are not going to maintain
> > packages or infrastructure? How should the NM process be modified in
> > order to provide for this?
> 
> This is a tough question.  The problem is that once you're a
> developer, you can also upload packages and some translators or
> documentation people might not have the abilities for that.  The easy
> solution to create a seperate keyring sound easy, but isn't when you
> think about it... it would introduce a tier-system in Debian in which
> some developers are more equal than others... it's not clear whether
> we want to go there.

One way of doing this would be to limit everyone equally. We could
modify the upload process so that all developers are allowed to upload
only their packages, and have some sort of check or delay or whatever
for doing NMUs. Alternatively, there could be 'groups' of package for
which additional uploaders can be admitted, because we know they have
the skill for it. This would have every developper at the same level,
and would need to get a sort of certification for uploading various kind
of packages (libraries, perl packages, security sensitive, base, etc.).
This would also pave the way for more cooperative maintenance of group
of packages or something such, an extension of co-maintainership if you
want.

As an example, i maintain the ocaml and related packages. There are
other maintainers working on packages based on ocaml, and if i need a
NMU of one of my packages, i will ask one of those to do it on the
debian-ocaml-maint mailing list, since i know they know about the
packages more than a random developper who has no idea what ocaml is
about.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Eduard Bloch]

#include 
* Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:24:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:30:43PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > > That is not only about me - you did not listen to any other person
> > > > showing you a way to change the current behaviour.
> > > 
> > > Incorrect; I listened, though I disagreed.
> > 
> > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> > 
> > (some examples would be ideal here, but I don't have any).
> > 
> > (not my observation, just my interpretation of both the comments above,
> > perhaps taken out of context).
> 
> Well, I don't think that's a fair statement.  I corresponded in a fairly
> detailed manner Osamu Aoki regarding bug #168347, for example.

Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

Please think about it next time when you claim to support efforts like
debian-desktop subproject.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Wie man durch Beisammensein fortliebt unter der Rinde die Frau, so
auch den Freund; nur die Unterbrechung zeigt uns, wie so stark wir
lieben.
-- Jean Paul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A question for all candidates

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:02:09PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:

 > Also, it would show me that the project actually thinks that the
 > tasks I listed in my platform are important, and that the project
 > stands behind what I'm doing.

 I must have missed the memo.  Since when does this project work like
 that?  Last time I checked, the way we do a lot of the things you
 mention in your platform was by rolling up your sleeves and start
 working.  If "the project actually thinks that the task [you are doing]
 are important" people join you in your effort.  For example:

 * "First, I think there are several problems with the sponsorship
   system.  There is no listing of sponsored people and hence it is
   quite hard to keep track of them."

   Obviously good and obviously backed up by QA people.  No need
   whatsoever to be DPL to get this going.

 * "Second, I will re-introduce the New Maintainer postings."

   Obviously backed up by several people.  More than once people have
   asked what happened with this.  No need to DPL status either.  Only a
   good working relationship with the NM admin people is needed.  If DPL
   status is required for that, we might as well pack our stuff and go
   home.

 * "Third, I intend to put more focus on inactive developers."

   I'm starting to sound like a broken record.  Again, certainly backed
   up by QA people.

 * "The web site is too impersonal" (bug#76187)

   Why would anyone need to run for DPL to get such a thing done?  This
   is examplary of "roll up your sleeves and do it".

 As you put it yourself "as DPL, I will encourage similar efforts. You
 don't have to be DPL to get things done."  Exactly.  That's the way
 this project works.

 On the rest of the section entitled "internal functions" you resort to
 hand waving arguments revolving arround the idea of "face to face
 contact", which might or might not be a really good thing.  My personal
 impression from your platform is that you take that imagery of "the
 fearless leader" too seriously.  That kind of leader, the one that's
 cheered up by the masses when he makes personal appearences, is surely
 a good thing for fun (and therefore motivational) value, but that's
 rarely the kind of leader that gets to office by means of a vote.

 If I had to write an abstract for your platform, it would include the
 phrase "personal contact is the basis for good teamwork", since that's,
 after a couple of readings, the meat of your argument.

 In short, I'm still missing the answer to "what would make Michlmayr a
 better D*PL* than Bdale or Branden?"  (No, I didn't forget Moshe)

 Cheers,

-- 
Marcelo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Vote of a former candidate

[Raphael Hertzog]

Le Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 12:31:25AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog écrivait:
> Hello,
> 
> since several people sollicited me to represent myself this year and
> since I didn't want to run again for DPL, I'd like to make my vote
> public. That way people who voted for me last year can decide to follow
> my vote if they don't have any other strong opinion about the
> candidates.
> 
> My vote will be :
> 1. Martin Michlmayr
> 2. Bdale Garbee
> 3. None of the above

Just a precision, the fact that Branden and Moshe are ranked below "None
of the above" doesn't show any animosity of my part against them. It
just means that in my opinion they wouldn't do good leaders because
their platforms do not match my view of Debian. I just follow the logic
of the voting mechanism.

[ I'm posting this message since a so-called Overfiend looked like
  a bit disappointed by myself on #d-d ;-) ]

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and
> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

Again, demonstrably untrue:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200211/msg00689.html

Marcelo Magallon also disagreed with Osamu Aoki's proposed patch; does
that mean he also "ignored the proposal completely"?

Doing nothing is the right answer if the only clear alternative is doing
the wrong thing.  I feel having the Xsession script register itself as
an "x-session-manager" is the wrong technical solution, and I explained
why.

> Please think about it next time when you claim to support efforts like
> debian-desktop subproject.

Because I did not acquiesce to your will on a specific technical issue,
I oppose the debian-desktop subproject?

It would be most refreshing if you would conduct a conversation without
resorting to the most blatant of logical fallacies.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Suffer before God and ye shall be
Debian GNU/Linux   | redeemed.  God loves us, so He
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | makes us suffer Christianity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Vote of a former candidate

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Just a precision, the fact that Branden and Moshe are ranked below "None
> of the above" doesn't show any animosity of my part against them. It
> just means that in my opinion they wouldn't do good leaders because
> their platforms do not match my view of Debian. I just follow the logic
> of the voting mechanism.
> 
> [ I'm posting this message since a so-called Overfiend looked like
>   a bit disappointed by myself on #d-d ;-) ]

I'm generally of the opinion that remarks made on IRC should be rebutted
on IRC, and not elsewhere, but to be specific, my grouse was that your
critique of my platform was facile.

> While Branden improved much his behavior during the last year,

Just FYI, it's difficult to read this as anything but a backhanded
compliment, which runs counter to your thesis of "not showing any
animosity".  How you *you* take it if I said, "Raphaël has improved much
his Frenchness during the last year."?  I'm not even sure what that
*means*, but I'd be willing to bet five bucks that your first impression
would be that it was an insult of some sort.  ;-)

> I think he expects too much from the delegation mechanism ... the
> failure of the technical committee shows that giving official titles
> to people doesn't make them work on what they are supposed to do.

This is the more substantive point.  However, you seem to be completely
ignoring the fact that I've proposed doing must more than just "giving
official titles to people".

Let's review my platform for some of the other aspects of delegation I
discussed:

  * "The DPL must also follow up with the delegates, and ensure that
they understand their responsibilities; not just so that they know
what is required of them, but so that they know what is not required
of them."

  * "As a first approximation, I believe there should be a webpage on
the Debian site specifically dedicated to DPL delegates: it should
enumerate them, describe each one's responsibilities, state the date
each one's term began, and provide a link to each delegate (or
team's) webpage where they can post news and status information,
where applicable. Delegates should be directly involved in
establishing their own standards and responsibilities; this is not
only more fair to volunteers, but this should also serve to get the
DPL and the delegate off to a good start in having open channels of
communication. The best goals are those we are free to set for
ourselves. While the DPL cannot single-handedly ensure that
everyone's goals are met, he or she can at least develop a strong
knowledge of the Project's strong and weak points in the delegation
structure, and solicit volunteers to reinforce the weak points."

  http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/platforms/branden

This is far more involved that just "giving official titles to people".

It includes:

  1) following up with delegates
  2) ensuring the delegates understand their responsibilities
  3) public enumeration of all delegate positions and who holds them
  4) public notice of when each delegate began his or her term
  5) centralize reference point for delegate status reports
  6) delegates work with DPL to define their own standards and scope of
 responsibilities
  7) the DPL staying on top of how each delegate is doing his or her
 job, so that he knows when a position could use assistance
  8) solicitation of additional or replacement volunteers for delegate
 positions that aren't meeting the standards in 6)

All these points are a very simple restatement of language that is
already in my platform.

To conclude, it appears that you issued your critique of my platform
without having even read it, or without having read it very carefully.
Your statements could be very misleading to other voters, and this is
why I encourage everyone to do his or her own research before casting a
ballot; consciously or not, other people's characterizations of a
candidate or his views can be quite distorted.

Whether your remarks were motivated by a personal animus is likewise
something that each person is going to have to decide for him- or
herself; I don't think bare assertions one way or the other are very
persuasive.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  mark with chalk,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  hope like hell.


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: our users as one of our priorities

[Brian May]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include 
> * Branden Robinson [Fri, Mar 07 2003, 03:23:37PM]:
> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > Perhaps it is more a matter of not demonstrating that you have listened.
> > 
> > Well, I don't think that's a fair statement.  I corresponded in a fairly
> > detailed manner Osamu Aoki regarding bug #168347, for example.
> 
> Well, I do think so. You ignored my proposal completely and

(I can't comment on this; unless it is your proposal in bug #168347)

> answered-in-a-detailed-manner to Osamu and did the same: nothing.

This doesn't support the hypothesis that Branden doesn't demonstrate
that he has listened.

Rather it supports what Branden said earlier that he doesn't always
agree with you.

...and if the DPL always agreed with everything I said, I think I would
be rather suspicious of that DPL[1]...

(some people seem to think "listen" and "agree" are the same word; they
are not).

Notes:
[1] Unless of course I was the one offering the bribes ;-).
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Branden's cryptic advice

[Richard Braakman]

Branden Robinson ended his part of the 2003 DPL debate with this message:

I'd like everybody to make as informed a decision as they can when
voting, and to please exercise their franchise.  Only you can make
the system work.

At this point, various non-native English speakers may be left wondering,
  What's a franchise?
  Why does Branden think that mine needs exercise?
  Do I even HAVE a franchise?
  Is it big and hairy?

To clear up the confusion, I did some research.  According to
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (the true geek's
dictionary), "franchise" is derived from French "franc" or "franche",
meaning free.  That's certainly in the spirit of Debian.  The
dictionary also adds: See {Frank}.

Looking up "Frank", we find "A pigsty" as the first definition.
Slightly surprising, but maybe it's a comment on the project's
current lack of organization.  More likely, the definition we
want is further down: "unbounded by restrictions, limitations,
etc.; free".  Its etymology is telling.  It's listed as from
French "franc", meaning free; from Latin "Francus", meaning a
Frank; and from German "Franko", "the name of a Germanic people
on the Rhine, who afterward founded the French monarchy".

In other words, the Fiend was telling us to be more French.

It's a strange world.

-- 
Richard Braakman
  to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction
  between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Branden's cryptic advice

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Looking up "Frank", we find "A pigsty" as the first definition.
> Slightly surprising, but maybe it's a comment on the project's
> current lack of organization.  More likely, the definition we
> want is further down: "unbounded by restrictions, limitations,
> etc.; free".  

Nope.  You want this one, from WordNet (3):

   3: a statutory right or privilege granted to a person or group
  by a government (especially the right to vote)

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Branden's cryptic advice

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:45:26AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> At this point, various non-native English speakers may be left wondering,
>   What's a franchise?
>   Why does Branden think that mine needs exercise?
>   Do I even HAVE a franchise?
>   Is it big and hairy?
[snip]
> -- 
> Richard Braakman
>   to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction
>   between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.

This sums it up so well.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]