Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:50:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? It was intended to be parsed as [providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so] to avoid requiring us to commit resources that we aren't able to do so comfortably, and/or distribute programs that we cannot legally distribute. So, the alternative is not ship the problematic files at all, altough we can waive that with something like Frederik's GR. Manoj, what is the plan for Frederik's GR ? is the idea to voting it separatedly from the rest of the more ideological GRs and amendments still something that can or will happen ? D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. I'd intended for this paragraph to be used as something that people working with hardware vendors to freely license the source to firmware could point to when the hardware vendors ask Does Debian actually want this? I don't believe it would require Debian to send any message to the hardware vendors, besides its presence in the resolution. Well, the resolution we will end up with will end up on slashdot, and probably be linked in major linux-related news sites and such. It will most assuredly end being read at least by the technical part of their driver staff. As thus, it would be more diplomatic, and in the long term more productive, to turn this last paragraph in a more soft way, maybe using terms like Recomend instead of Request and speaking of working with the hardware vendors or something like this i saw in another proposal. But then, someone with more grasp of the english lenguage should comment on this. Also, keep in mind that it will probably be the kernel team, and maybe even specifically me, who will end doing those requests. Another thing to keep in mind is that when i contacted broadcom and Andres followed on it, there was a reply, and in the end they clarified their licencing, while, i think it was Thomas, who probably posted a more aggresive mail did never even get a reply, and was probably dismissed as yet-another-fanatic or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is now. Or perhaps we should make it harder/more painful to discourage time-wasters. :) All proposals must be uploaded to a machine that has its input throttled to one byte per second, and which stops to demand a password every five minutes, for example. No one would bother with that until they were sure they had everything _just right_. :) -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
== BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === seconded -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System Well, i personally couldn't care less, since i don't use reiserfs, which is known to eat data for breakfast, but i disabled reiserfs support only because progreiserfs was kicked out of testing. -- Sven Luther, debian-devel@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Hi, Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: The first article[2] on the topic's already been published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's favour, and to allow other groups that have different ideas about what priorities are important to encourage contributions to those areas. A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Denis Barbier [1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Seconded. Regards, Joey Denis Barbier wrote: Hi, Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: The first article[2] on the topic's already been published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's favour, and to allow other groups that have different ideas about what priorities are important to encourage contributions to those areas. A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Denis Barbier [1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1 -- GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 pgpaHxXswqfzG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Denis, Anthony did his best to handle this cleanly and openly, from the very start. With his new funding project, he tried drawing a separation which I consider similar to the one I draw between my personal and my professional life. This separation is never perfect. The DPL is pursuing this project because he thinks this is for the good of Debian. Isn't it what being the DPL is all about? Instead of depriving us of our DPL, instead of starting elections, long flames, instead of painting Debian stupid, why don't you propose something *constructive*. I'm impressed by the energy and creativity Anthony found for this issue, even if I strongely objected to his initial plan. Please, don't be the one blocking innovation in Debian; be innovant instead. Thanks, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:00 -0400, Clint Adams wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. I take it that all the followers of this motion are candidates for taking on the DPL position instead? Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
also sprach Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.20.1943 +0200]: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. *Not* seconded. What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch, please ffs. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems all language designers are arrogant. goes with the territory... -- larry wall signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I second the below proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEXC+2WTeT3CRQaQRAhlPAJ9/TgKylWi5juN0a4HANt7bUNh1OQCfceBn VO68H5gh+OAlLPFNteY0eiE= =czmz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:13:41 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] And people tell me I am guilty of egregious abuse of power? Bla. This is just a bunch of concerned developers very slowly crafting a resolution. I am sure I can make my resolution come to perfection over the course of several years. If the DAM can suddenly exercise judgement, and it is not abuse of power, why is a brainless secretary so very desirable? Manoj, please stop this crap. Either continue to work like a real secretary, or step down. Ah, crap, is it? I am pretty sure I am not being paid enough to take abuse like this, unlike some other people. And what have I done that is not working like a real secretary? I can understand that you have an opinion about all GRs that are proposed, but in your role as Project Secretary, you are supposed to be apolitical and you shouldn't try to make people's life harder than it needs to be. More accusation, also unsubstantiated. Can you point to any politically biased action in my official capacity as a secretary that made life harder than it needs to be? Or are you just fanning the flames? Or is this a hypothetical (if so, that does not appear to be the case). This does *not* mean that you should like a machine, but that you should, for example, consult someone else if you feel that your decisions could be influenced by your private opinion. I have never actually felt that, hence the consultation bit is moot. The job you have done for the last years could not be done by a mindless machine, that's why we have a person to do it. Please don't try to turn into the former just because some people needed to flame, but work on new ways to work around the problematic parts of being human. The issue is not about the being human bit -- the problem is whether the secretary has any discretion on the vote.d.o page (which is not constitutionally mandated, but was initiative to make life easier for the voters). The issue does seem to be whether or not the secretary should be replace by automata. manoj -- Safety Third. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500 Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not specifically permit that. I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters. I think this is the correct decision. The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems like the natural solution. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something. This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:21:40 -0400, Benj Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500 The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems like the natural solution. Not ideal. There can be legitimately large intervals in refining a project, in which people do not feel there is an attempt to filibuster. Ideally, human judgement should be involved -- replacing judgement by automata or hard coded deadlines is not the way to go. Instead, after 4-6 weeks beyond the date of the priginal proposal, allow for 4*K developers to cut the proposal time short (say, impose a deadline of now + 2 weeks). This means not only that the interval is large, but a number of developers also feel that the resolution is being stalled deliberately. This way, there is still a minimum about 8 weeks to come up with proposals (6+2), so there is a reasonable assurance that no legitimate proposals shall be left off the table due to someone rushing things through, and yet there is a upper limit to the filibuster. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something. The past is not always prologue. As the project grows, and apparently more polarized, it is easy to find K + 1 developers at the extreme ends of any postiion. As the project grows, so do the extent that people go to to get their ends met (I'll refrain from pointing out the latest proposals on -vote). This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to. Umm, what in my mail conveyed urgency? I do think that we ought to close the loopholes in the constitution sooner rather than later, under the gun, but it is a simple change. manoj -- It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. The Earl of Birkenhead Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I This is outlandish and insulting. That a Debian developer should be held responsible every time someone in the press writes something inaccurate is terribly wrong. I applaud AJ for showing initiative and being willing to try new things to improve Debian. I don't agree with everything he's done, but this is an *experiment* and he described it as such. Furthermore, Debian should not be attempting to control the lives of developers outside of Debian. This represents a terrible intrusion into privacy and, moreover, an unreasonable demand upon volunteers. What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the speech of its developers or leadership. It is only by trying new ideas and having open and honest debate that Debian will improve. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Seconded. I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their judgement about recalling a DPL? Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL. Why is there any support at all for this? Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:41:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the speech of its developers or leadership. Bah, this is in line with what has been happening in debian recently anyway, remember our DPL made noise about censoring the mailing list and expulsing people from them in the electoral campaign, and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:44:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Seconded. I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their judgement about recalling a DPL? Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL. Why is there any support at all for this? Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about. Let me quote Anthony Towns again: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
[Sven Luther] and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? OH NO YOU DON'T. This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is _not_ about debian-installer. Also, we've already heard it 100 times. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Debian to decide. This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question. It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making the attempt and observing the results. I would note that this does nothing to actually make him stop with his project. Besides, getting an answer to a question seems a pretty flimsy reason to recall a DPL. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Sven Luther] and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? OH NO YOU DON'T. Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right. This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is _not_ about debian-installer. It is indeed not about me, it is about the direction where debian is going, and it is a trend i have been noticing since some time now, but some may say it was so before even, and i have just been unaware of it. The fact is some feel they can control what other do in public, like here with Anthony, while other think they can control what other post on mailing lists, like the d-i team tried to do with me, and others still believe a strong censorship on the debian mailing list is the way to go, like Anthony and some others mentioned in their electoral campaign these past two years. Other such issues involve team leaders handling other team members like paid employees, and not like fellow volunteers, and this is maybe more accute in those who are themselves being paid to do debian work. Not to mention arbitrary expulsions done in haste and without proper procedures, or our secretary being under attack for the way he handles votes, which i feel rather halucinating in itself. All in all, i believe there are some folk whose participation in debian has clearly gotten to their head, and there seems in the last few months a complete lack of contact with reality and responsability as debian flames over firmware and paying RMs and whatever not. Time for all involved to get a bit of thinking done about all this, and check in their pride, and see what this is doing, not only to debian as a whole, but to the individual developpers also. Notice also how those flamewars and intestine disputes may have some negative effects of some of the most fragile among us, and i feel that i was myself also guilty of this, but at least i recognize it and have tried to work on it, and i believe was quite successfull at that during the last month or two. Also, we've already heard it 100 times. Well, you may have heard it, but you clearly have a pre-defined idea of what i am saying, and what i am actually saying is not entering your skull. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit : But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. What's so scandalous about the DPL encouraging a timely release? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and persuade the electorate. No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include background material. I have asked that the text of resolutions not be misleadingly edited to exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed and seconded as part of that resolution. This is about whether developers are being denied the ability to put position statements to a vote that include preambulatory material as part of the statement, about whether their fellows are being denied the opportunity to vote on those position statements, and about whether after the vote is concluded, the section of the debian.org website set aside for listing these position statements is going to include the text that was proposed and seconded, or a subset that complies with the current Project Secretary's notion of what constitutes a proper resolution. If there is a disagreement among the proposer and sponsors of a resolution over what the resolution *is*, then of course it's not ready to be put to a vote. If OTOH it's been stated clearly by the proposer what text is being submitted to the developership for ratification, and there are no objections from the seconders, how is it proper for the PS to put something other than this text, or a direct reference to this text, on the ballot? That is the state that http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 was in last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number had been elided, and each ballot option was prefaced by the prejudicial statement that [t]he actual text of the resolution is as follows. Please note that this does not include preambles to the resolutions, [...], implying that preambles are not part of the resolution and are not votable. Now the page includes the full original mail body from each of the proposers; well, this is at least an improvement over the previous state of affairs in that it is no longer excluding parts of the proposed resolution, but it also seems Manoj is being deliberately perverse in claiming that Don's Burning Man [vac] notice is part of the resolution. :/ -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:09:34PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Debian to decide. This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question. It does nothing of the kind. You're saying that you're not even going to give him the chance. You can't answer the question without making the attempt and observing the results. Huh? Observe the results of what? I would note that this does nothing to actually make him stop with his project. Absolutely, this vote is not against the Dunc project, but the fact that it is initiated by the Project Leader. I believe that the Dunc project has to be distinct from Debian to have a chance to succeed, and this is also the position stated on their pages, see http://www.dunc-tank.org/background.html It does, however, mean that questions of control and conflicts of interest are considered very carefully by the project, and after an in-depth discussion on the developer-only mailing list, debian-private, it was decided to run this project outside Debian proper, to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest that might develop can be safely quarantined from Debian itself. Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and preserve Debian in case of failure. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 07:38, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:39:35 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:47:18AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall: i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users; ii. ensure that project resources are made available to people working on addressing those issues; iii. keep the Debian community updated on progress achieved in these areas. I am not sure that we can resovle what a future (and as yet unknown project leader shall do; people can only state that they plan on doing this work, or instituting a general resolution, or something, in any case, it does not belong in the ballot, but perhaps in an accompanying rationale/statement of intent. I feel the DPL is one of the few roles where you can do that: - the current DPL has already indicated that he is willing to take the responsibility; - a future DPL could, if he's not willing to take on the task him/herself, delegate it. The option of delegation makes it possible to put the responsibility with the post while allowing the actual work to be done by another person. This shall include both an online consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997. Also, how are you planning on having all 1001 developers at Edinburgh? Or is this restricted to the fraction of developers who can afford to make it to Scotland? That is not what it says. It says there will be a consultation with the whole community using classic means (mail, website, ...). This is where the main focus will be. And besides that there will be a discussion at Debconf 7 for those who can be there. The fact that the results of that discussion are summarized and made public as part of the larger consultation is implied. IMO Debconf, as the official annual Debian conference, is an event that is by its definition suitable for such discussions, irrespective of who can and cannot (afford) to be there. pgpF1dFMIwTJ4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and preserve Debian in case of failure. Uhm, did you ask any of the dunc-tank people whether they would like to carry on after your GR passed? I don't see that as a given. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
This one time, at band camp, Denis Barbier said: Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and preserve Debian in case of failure. So, just to be clear, you want to punish a Debian developer for their activities outside of Debian? That sounds like a really good thing to start doing. Can I be in charge of wiretaps in your brave new world? I'm glad you're looking out for the good of Debian here. Because, just for a moment, this really looked like a good way to create a lot of divisiveness and make things much harder than they already are. But who knows, maybe we'll be better off with DPL's that never try anything new. Certainly a new idea is a punishable offense in most companies I've seen. So now that we're in crazy-as-batshit land, who do you want to bring up on charges next? I suggest an inquisition. Nobody ever expects that. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 13:04, MJ Ray wrote: Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] to the removal from the distribution (main) of software that could be Please, drop the scare quotes on software. No, I don't think so. There are people who feel that everything that is not hardware is software and this seems to be the current definition of the Social Contract. There are others who feel that the world is not black and white, but that there are other categories, or that least that there are categories who do deserve a less strict treatment than real code. These categories include images, documentation and firmware. [...] i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users; s/prevent/affect/ else it assumes the outcome before the discussion (as well as being false). OK. [...] Some statistics to give an indication (this is based on my local mailbox of d-vote for Aug/Sept for subjects containing source or firmware with only some irrelevant subthreads deleted). In total 465 posts from approximately 80 different persons. [...] 16 From: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] In addition to these heavy posters, [...] Writing ~3 posts a week to a thread running at ~90 posts a week does not make one a heavy poster. No, I agree. relatively heavy then? There was only one person in the list who's posting behavior I'd really qualify as excessive. [1] This is also why I object to MJ Ray's amendment in [EMAIL PROTECTED] as it codifies the solution without having checked its practical implications. It presents an example of its implementation - I know it has practical problems, but it's the simplest example of the solution I could see, given the constraints. It does allow people to solve the practical problems by implementing a similar result in a better way. The problem with hardcoding the solution in a GR, especially if you know there are practical problems, is that, if accepted, you can no longer implement an alternative solution that would resolve those practical problems even if it is in the spirit of the resolution. Why include an example? To avoid the that's unimplementable cry which some DDs have made against my suggestions in the past. Then I'd suggest moving the example outside the actual ballot. [...] There are probably only two people who come close to his level of overall understanding of the installer (no, I'm not one of them, I rank myself about fifth). I wondered several times why that is, and then I tried to get a working development debian-installer. This isn't the place, but for a start http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ seems more aimed at users and beta-testers than developers, yet it's in /devel/ on the site. So, I don't think that failing to understand the subtleties of debian-installer should disqualify people from the discussion, but it's quite right to say that we should listen to those who do. The website is totally dedicated to the development version of the installer. The information you are looking for can be found on the wiki, which is linked from the page. Feel free to ask for specific help either on the d-boot list or on #d-boot. So, my formal position as D-I release manager has to be: We will not accept any structural changes to support loading firmware in the installer (not from main nor from elsewhere), - if the release plan for Etch remains at 4 December 2006; - unless both Joey Hess and I, after careful review of a finished and tested proposed solution, decide that 1) it provides an acceptable solution for all installation methods and architectures, 2) it poses no risk of regressions or delays in the run-up to the release. In principle, would you accept the change as drafted by Joey Hess in [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Yes. Except (as explained in my original mail) that I'm not really in favor of taking it from non-free as that would condemn such users to have non-free in their sources for the installed system as well. The initiatives started during the discussion on d-vote to implement some kind of support are appreciated, but they are too late for Etch! So, it seems fair to let people ask: did the release managers address this topic reasonably early enough in the release process and how can a repeat best be avoided for the next release? Which release managers are you talking about here? Debian RMs? In that case the answer is no, but the question is if it is part of their job description to manage individual development issues. D-I RMs? In that case the answer is that we have been waiting for concrete implementation of a split in the kernel so that we would know what we would have to work with. The first real implementations of that split happened too late to make a difference
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
seconded Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit : Hi, Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: The first article[2] on the topic's already been published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's favour, and to allow other groups that have different ideas about what priorities are important to encourage contributions to those areas. A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Denis Barbier [1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fp id;1 -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpUJz7s1fT8k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal - Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release
On Monday 18 September 2006 16:09, Nathanael Nerode wrote: The project acknowledges that a lot of progress has been made with regard to the removal from the distribution (main) of software that could be considered non-free given the current wording of the Social Contract. You mean ...that is non-free according to the Social Contract. I tire of hearing the completely invalid claim that the Social Contract as written, now or before, can possibly allow non-free programs in main. I'm not advocating to keep it in main indefinitely, only to allow it in main for Etch. Also, I personally don't see why firmware that is properly licenced but is only lacking source needs to be non-free. IMO firmware by its nature is sufficiently different from normal code that some exceptions are acceptable for the good of our users. I do agree that having a source would be preferable and is something to strive for. FYI: This will require at a minimum (assuming undistributable firmware is allowed in general) removal of lumps of hex from 13 files in the kernel. The 'new' ones are noted at ldoolit's page: http://doolittle.icarus.com/~larry/fwinventory/2.6.17.html My personal standpoint is that firmware that is properly licenced and this distributable can fall under exception. Firmware that is not should in principle not be included in Debian. (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997. As long as it's recalled that supermajority requirements are needed to change the SC, great! Of course. - (almost) everybody agrees that sourceless firmware at least needs to be distributable before any kind of support can be considered; I think you're wrong here, unless you're using an unusual definition of distributable. The usual definition used by debian-legal is We have explicit legal permission to distribute it. If you were right, we wouldn't have 46 undistributable files in Debian's Linux kernel packages today. I have never followed d-legal. My definition would be has by the copyright holder been put/made available under a licence that allows distribution. - probably a larger number feels that we should not kill the project As if anything suggested here would kill the project. Hyperbole? Yes. Implementations of firmware loading in the kernel are straightforward at this point and require no discussion. They are all feasible, and some are completed. Sure. That is not the issue here. The issue is supporting the Debian packaging of the firmware in an acceptable way in the installer and on installation media. Details have not been worked out for d-i, but the implementation appears to be 90% complete, and feasibility is definite. It's time for testing, to find the weak points. I beg to differ. - Joey Hess has claimed that it will take upwards of six months to ready the installer for loading firmware from non-free. However, it turns out the majority of the work which he listed as necessary has *already been done* and requires *no changes*. See Goswin von Brederlow's message at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/09/msg00017.html . Thanks for linking to that message. I had not seen that yet (partly due to my mailbox running full during my VAC and partly because that message, given its content, has a non-descriptive subject and is not on the optimal list for discussing implementing things in d-i). There a lot of interesting information in that mail, some of which is new to me. Wouldn't it have been nice if the split in the kernel had happened half a year earlier and people who obviously have relevant knowledge _and_ feel the subject is important had come forward to join the d-i team to solve this issue? Unfortunately that is not the case and it is now too late for implementation given the status of D-I in relation to Etch release planning. The target date of the D-I RC1 release has been communicated by the Debian RMs almost a year ago, so everybody could have known that structural changes at this late date would not be acceptable. Charitably, I would like to assume Joey Hess was just ignorant of the status of d-i. (I didn't know either.) Can you really blame someone for not being aware of a relatively minor technical detail that seems to have been implemented a long time ago but has never actually been used? I hope not. But everyone is incompetent sometimes (consider my efforts to find the d-i repo), and it's more charitable to assume incompetence. I'd appreciate it if you would retract the term incompetent.
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le mer 20 septembre 2006 19:43, Denis Barbier a écrit : The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. To that rationale, I'd like to add the fact that Debian has two very important documents: the SC and the Constitution. Neither of them is strictly legally binding[1]. Nevertheless, that's the core of Debian, it's the very first question we ask to our NM: please explain the SC, and do you accept the Constitution. I've always followed the Constitution with or without my DD hat, and I would feel bad to break it, especially its spirit. It's our duty, because those documents are what Debian really is. If we artificially remove our DD hats to do whatever we want, even if it does indeed concern Debian, we are just plain liars. The spirit of the Constitution is that bigs steps have to be discussed and decided by the Project as a whole. And for the leader, it's not only the spirit of the Constitution, it's explicit: § 5.3. Procedure The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers. Where practical the Project Leader should informally solicit the views of the Developers. The Project Leader should avoid overemphasizing their own point of view when making decisions in their capacity as Leader. The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external structure has been launched. Onboard, we see many very well known people, whose relation to Debian is unquestionable. Like Denis says, the article on [3] title says Debian experiments […] and the first sentence of the article is The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is experimenting with …. Please, this whole thing is a fraud, and it's even less tolerable that it come from people that are abusing their celebrity to endorse and support such initiatives. The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been flouted. And here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony Towns. [1] maybe in some countries, but I seriously doubt that it's a general rule at least. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus [3] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1 -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpaa29c5zTeO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:28:26 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and persuade the electorate. No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include background material. I have asked that the text of resolutions not be misleadingly edited Miisleadingly edited? Wittingly or unwittingly? Are you claiming that the intent was to mislead? to exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed and seconded as part of that resolution. Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the resolution -- their lies the crux of the disagreement. I have no objection to including the full text of a resolution. I am not going to add other material not part of the resolution to the web page. This is not subject to debate any more. (However, this might just be a matter of semantics, lost now under accusations of gross and egregious abuse of power). If there is a disagreement among the proposer and sponsors of a resolution over what the resolution *is*, then of course it's not ready to be put to a vote. If OTOH it's been stated clearly by the proposer what text is being submitted to the developership for ratification, and there are no objections from the seconders, how is it proper for the PS to put something other than this text, or a direct reference to this text, on the ballot? People propose and second all kinds of junk. Including vacation notices, observations on how other people are wrong, personal beliefs, and all. That is the state that http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 was in last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number had been elided, and each ballot option was prefaced by the prejudicial statement that [t]he actual text of the resolution is as follows. Please note that this does not include preambles to the resolutions, [...], implying that preambles are not part of the resolution and are not votable. I am going to reinstate that paragraph, for it is certainly true. If you think the truth is prejudicial, I can't help that. Now the page includes the full original mail body from each of the proposers; well, this is at least an improvement over the previous state of affairs in that it is no longer excluding parts of the proposed resolution, but it also seems Manoj is being deliberately perverse in claiming that Don's Burning Man [vac] notice is part of the resolution. :/ That was certainly not clear before. People are seconding the full email, including such material. Since it is your view that the secretary can't decide to elide parts pf the text that has been properly proposed and seconded, I don't understand what you are crying about here. Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. manoj -- With his mind free from the inflow of thoughts and from restlessness, by abandoning both good and evil, an alert man knows no fear. 39 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Procedural rulings about proposing and sponsoring General resolutions
Hi, Under the following sections of the constitution: , | 4.1. Powers | 5. Proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other |formal actions are made by announcement on a publicly-readable |electronic mailing list designated by the Project Leader's |Delegate(s); any Developer may post there. | 6. Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. The |Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change their |votes. | A.3. Voting procedure | 4. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of |procedure. ` Here are the rules for proposals and sponsorship: 1. The electronic mailing list designated is [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the authoritative source of the full text of all resolutions, as well as the supporting arguments and other material. 2. Every proposal and sponsoring email must be signed with the cryptographic key that lives in the Debian keyrings. The keyrings are part of the authoritative answer to who is or is not a Debian developer. 3. Every proposal must clearly indicate the bounds of the proposal, which must be clearly delineated from surrounding text of the mail message. Every sponsor must also indicate they full text they are sponsoring. This implies that the sponsor may not just cite the whole message in toto. 4. When the vote is called, the proposer or a sponsor of every proposal or amendment must provide a final version of the proposal or amendment in wml format for inclusion on the web pages of the Debian project. This wml snippet must be verified to contain exactly the text that was delineated and sponsored. 5. When the vote is called, the proposer or a sponsor of every proposal or amendment must provide a single line (60 character) synopsis of their proposal or amendment. This synopsis shall be taken into account by the secretary when creating the ballot. Failing items 4 and 5, the secretaries version shall be deemed final. It is strongly suggested that the proposers and sponsors be prepared with the matter in question before the end of the minimal discussion period, since the vote shall not be delayed on account of these missing items. manoj ps: This holds for any proposals currently underway pps: I personally suggest that people include the proposal as a plain text mime part, disposition inline, and sign that inlined plain text part; that makes it very clear what the proposal is. -- Even more amazing was the realization that God has Internet access. I wonder if He has a full newsfeed? -- Matt Welsh Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/vote/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgp08xoOdxMO1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external structure has been launched. Onboard, we see many very well known You know, this is far from the first time a situation like this has happened. Some others, none of which caused proposals like this to occur, included: * Ubuntu is funding Debian developers due to a disagreement about direction, emphasis, and release practices. A very real fork, yet with many common developers with Debian. * Progeny funded Debian developers working on alternative Debian installers, configuration tools, and a host of other items and was led at the time by none other than the founder of Debian (Ian Murdock). Many of Progeny's employees were and are Debian developers, with a former DPL (Branden) among them. * Bruce, a former DPL, being involved with a venture capital firm that funded Debian developers. * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing. I don't recall this coming with strings such as can't be spent on programmer time. So there is even precedent for the project doing this sort of thing. The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been flouted. And here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony Towns. You have yet to show that the Debian constitution does, or even should, apply to actions that occur outside of Debian. AJ is also a programmer -- do you claim that the Debian constitution and social contract prevents him from working for a proprietary software company on his own time? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Canonical list of proposal text
Manoj Srivastava writes (Canonical list of proposal text): Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of power. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the secretary to impose such additional obstacles to getting a GR through. A.2(3): 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4). Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has the asset tracking GR been reviewed by a lawyer
Hi. I'll admit that I've been rather out of the loop of late, but I do try to at least research GRs and make as informed of a decision as I can. I was unable to find any legal review of the proposed changes to the constitution. The idea of a project associated with a single non-profit for financial and legal matters is fairly well established: there is Debian and SPI, the IETf and ISOC, various arrangements involving the BSDs and a number of other things I'm aware of. Sometimes it works better than others--the projects with lots of money tend to have non-profits that are fairly organized, while projects with less money often do not enjoy as much organization. However, I'm concerned that the model we propose moving to may be much more dubious from a legal standpoint. Basically I'm not sure, and without a legal review I'm sure I can't support it. Has such a review happened? If so, is it public? If not public, can we at least know who did the review and have an assertion that they were happy with the proposed text? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. It seems to me as if what happened was: You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the resolution proper; but the proposer said no, that was an important part of the resolution proper. What's wrong with the proposer's word winning there? You just modify the draft ballot and say thanks for making it clear, and you can, if you wish and are concerned that shenanigans are afoot, ask the seconders whether they wish to keep their second in force. But, that said, I don't object to a clearer procedure if it's easy enough to follow, and the one you just posted seems reasonably easy to follow. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
Manoj Srivastava writes (Filibustering general resolutions): Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). I don't think that's true; I think you've misread it. A.2(4): 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted. If the original proposers of the GR don't accept the amendment, then the discussion period isn't restarted. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Russ Allbery writes (Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR): I don't really know how best to help with the underlying problem here. Part of the problem is that there are still people who think that we can rely on procedures to protect us absolutely from people. This is obviously nonsense. A part of this is that people, including Manoj I'm afraid, have tried to make rigid rules to answer questions of this kind. When I wrote these parts of the constitution it seemed obvious what the Secretary should do: when drafting the ballot for a resulotion, they should do their best to include what appears to the Secretary to be the resolution text intended by the resolutions' proponents. If it's not clear then obviously the Secretary will have to use their judgement. That's why we have a human being, not a robot. And, of course, sometimes the Secretary will make a mistake, which is no big deal because with the current practice of posting drafts, the sponsors of a resolution can point out the difficulty and it can be fixed. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. It seems to me as if what happened was: You thought the preamble was rationale and not part of the resolution proper; but the proposer said no, that was an important part of the resolution proper. The preamble, in my eyes, is still not part of the resolution. It is a preamble to the resolution, and won't be on vote.d.o. It is, however, possible that a rteolution may have an introductory section, which is part of the resolution. What's wrong with the proposer's word winning there? You just modify the draft ballot and say thanks for making it clear, and you can, if you wish and are concerned that shenanigans are afoot, ask the seconders whether they wish to keep their second in force. The draft ballot is not an issue. What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors are clear about their intent. manoj -- Editing is a rewording activity. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:58 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava writes (Filibustering general resolutions): Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). I don't think that's true; I think you've misread it. A.2(4): 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted. If the original proposers of the GR don't accept the amendment, then the discussion period isn't restarted. I am not sure this is the model we should be following )I know we are currently not following it at all). Your reading of the wording means that, strictly speaking, there is only a two week (or one week, if the DPL wishes) window for people to come up with alternate proposals, and there could be proposals submitted with no discussion at all, if the vote is called after the minimum discussion period. The ambiguous point here is the word accepted. Accepted by whom? The proposer of the original proposal? Or the project secretary as being a valid amendment to the proposal, whether or not accepted by the proposers of the initial proposal? I have always construed to to be the latter. Being first past the gate does not give one any additional powers, in my view, including having the full discussion period, as opposed to a curtailed one for the last proposal to sneak in under the bar. I still think that the constitution needs be amended, and here is my off the cuff diff for it: --- /usr/share/doc/debian/constitution.1.1.txt 2006-03-14 08:37:56.0 -0600 +++ NEW_GR.txt 2006-09-20 21:11:53.0 -0500 @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ 2. propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions; 3. propose themselves as a Project Leader candidate in elections; 4. vote on General Resolutions and in Leadership elections. +5. propose or sponsor a motion asking for faster processing of a + stalled general resolution 3.2. Composition and appointment @@ -139,6 +141,14 @@ 7. Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers. K is Q or 5, whichever is the smaller. Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded. +8. If the discussion period has not ended after 6 weeks from the + time the initial proposal was proposed and seconded, a minimum + of 4 * K developers may ask for expedited processing by asking for + the imposition of a deadline for the proposal. The discussion + period shall then start in 2 weeks from the time of the request + for expedited processing, with whatever proposal and amendments + wihch are at under consideration at the beginning of the discussion + period. The Project Leader may vary the deadline period by p to a week. 5. Project Leader @@ -178,6 +188,8 @@ personal views. 10. Together with SPI, make decisions affecting property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.1.) + 11. Vary the deadline for clossing of proposals for a stalled + general resolution. 5.2. Appointment manoj -- Kids, the seven basic food groups are GUM, PUFF PASTRY, PIZZA, PESTICIDES, ANTIBIOTICS, NUTRA-SWEET and MILK DUDS!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Canonical list of proposal text
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava writes (Canonical list of proposal text): Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of power. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the secretary to impose such additional obstacles to getting a GR through. A.2(3): 3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4). The web page is not the ballot. manoj -- It is far better to be deceived than to be undeceived by those we love. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors are clear about their intent. Right, so when you disambiguate (either way), especially if your understanding differs from the proposer, it makes sense to check back with the sponsors. I don't see why that couldn't have been done in this case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:56:25 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors are clear about their intent. Right, so when you disambiguate (either way), especially if your understanding differs from the proposer, it makes sense to check back with the sponsors. I don't see why that couldn't have been done in this case. I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email exchange, and assume that the sponsors are still paying attention to every mail in the deluge that is -vote; or we can have an up front process that does not depend on a culture of heroes for success. manoj -- EARTH: Mostly harmless. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
