Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:19, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a reason why those interested in supporting blob-dependant hardware > can't make a release that includes those blobs? As per SC #1 they can't refer > to it as "Debian", but they can use the project's resources to build and Because you are discriminating against hardware manufacturers if they chose to not put flash,cpld,etc chips onboard. You aren't "helping" freedom in any way. All you are doing is just pretending it doesn't exist. Pretending everything is fine by hiding anything not free in a black hole doesn't help freedom. Especially since you then banish from debian anyone that tries to expose the non-free stuff you've been trying to hide. Let me understand your position: only buy hardware where the manufacturer hides the firmware on an onboard flash otherwise you can't run debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
Sorry, I can't reply to the original mail itself, I hope this suffices. Frans Pop wrote: > > > - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the > > debian-devel-announce > >mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer > >Status"; > > > > - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members; > > > > - Because of the strong opposition to the method used to prepare, discuss > > and > >decide the announced changes, and without judging their validity; > > > > - In accordance with the paragraphs 4.1(3) and 4.2(2.2) of the > > Constitution; > > > > The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, > > decides: > > > > The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce > > mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are > > suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately > > [§4.2(2.2)]. > > > > In addition, the developers make the following statement: > > > > The delegates of the Project leader are asked to not take decisions that > > are > > not consensual about the membership procedures of the Project, and to let > > these procedures change by way of a general resolution if no consensus > > can be reached. > > > Seconded. I hereby second all text quoted by Frans. -- ·''`. It's never too late to have a happy childhood : :' : `. `' `- Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:00:27PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Robert Millan]
> > +
> > + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> > + Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
> > + none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is
> > considered
> > + suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
> > + ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
> > +
>
> It seems pretty impractical to allow the release of lenny, as some of
> the options do, yet force/authorize somebody to immediately, upon
> lenny's release, fix the linux-2.6 situation _in lenny_. Since of
> course we've known about linux-2.6 for far longer than 60 (or 180)
> days.
>
> For that matter, some of these options have the curious effect of
> allowing the lenny release while simultaneously authorizing developers
> to fix the etch and sarge kernels. Not that that part is enforceable,
> I'm pretty sure the RMs wouldn't actually allow that to happen.
>
> Now if you change the wording to exempt our published releases from
> this entire process, so that it applies only to unstable and testing,
> it would be a lot easier to support.
Hi,
Note that (after someone else pointed out the same concern) I included wording
to avoid this:
"however, moving packages in the \"stable\" distribution may still require
approval by the Release Team for \"stable\""
Perhaps we should also explicitly exclude "oldstable"? But what about versions
before oldstable then?
Or we could make it inclusive and list only "unstable" and "experimental".
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the > debian-devel-announce >mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) about "Developer >Status"; > > - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members; > > - Because of the strong opposition to the method used to prepare, discuss and >decide the announced changes, and without judging their validity; > > - In accordance with the paragraphs 4.1(3) and 4.2(2.2) of the Constitution; > > The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, > decides: > > The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce > mailing list (Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) are > suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)]. > > In addition, the developers make the following statement: > > The delegates of the Project leader are asked to not take decisions that are > not consensual about the membership procedures of the Project, and to let > these procedures change by way of a general resolution if no consensus > can be reached. Seconded. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations
[Robert Millan]
> +
> + When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
> + Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
> + none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is
> considered
> + suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
> + ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
> +
It seems pretty impractical to allow the release of lenny, as some of
the options do, yet force/authorize somebody to immediately, upon
lenny's release, fix the linux-2.6 situation _in lenny_. Since of
course we've known about linux-2.6 for far longer than 60 (or 180)
days.
For that matter, some of these options have the curious effect of
allowing the lenny release while simultaneously authorizing developers
to fix the etch and sarge kernels. Not that that part is enforceable,
I'm pretty sure the RMs wouldn't actually allow that to happen.
Now if you change the wording to exempt our published releases from
this entire process, so that it applies only to unstable and testing,
it would be a lot easier to support.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 à 15:17 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit : > For those who didn't get Josselin's witty remark, this happens because I dared > to complain that my words were being missrepresented by Steve Langasek on IRC, > pretending that I said something I never did. No, this happens because you said something stupid. I don’t follow the IRC channel in which this was said. > 21:22 < vorlon> oh yes, that's right, *sending chocolate* makes us look > like a bunch of clowns > 21:34 < nyu> vorlon: don't put words in my mouth, thanks > 21:35 < vorlon> nyu: what should I put in your mouth? I think he should put cookies in your mouth. But only if you fix a RC bug. > Let this serve as a warning for anyone who dares to complain that mr Langasek > is defamating him. Sorry, but I think if Steve wants to make fun of you, he doesn’t need my help. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice > --- > The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves, > applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from > the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It > instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to > send a box of chocolates to Ben. > --- > I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time Seconded. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 pgpBrYgcuh9Zc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:37:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > > Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to. > >> > If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on >> > the ballot. > >> Okay then. Here's the new ballot including your proposed options. > > Point of order: under the Standard Resolution Procedure of the > constitution, it's the responsibility of the *secretary* to assemble options > onto a ballot. Individual developers must propose and get seconds for > individual *resolutions*. > > You need to propose each of these resolutions separately, not ask for > seconds on a ready-made set of options. This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote. See "§A.1 Proposal" and "§A.1 Discussion and Amendment". On thinking about it, I would tend to think that a resolution means that it contains a firm solution for the issue under consideration, and multiple choices do not represent a firm solution. [1913 Webster] While I am tentatively ruling this so, I am still open to feedback, and I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks my determination on this issue is at fault, in which case we shall discuss this further. In practice, doing each alternative solution separately allows us to discard solutions that would not have been seconded if they had not been part of an omnibus proposal. In practice, this can be done two ways: a) in parallel, where each individual option is proposed separately, and combined into a single ballot by the secretary since it is about the same issue (this has been contentious in the past). § A.2.3, §7.1.1, §7.1.3, and §A.3.4 b) Propose one alternative, get it sponsored by the requisite number of seconds, and then add each option serially, as long as the original seconds continue to agree. §A.1.1, §A.1.2, §A.1.3, and §A.1.4 manoj , | A. Standard Resolution Procedure | | These rules apply to communal decision-making by committees and | plebiscites, where stated above. | | A.1. Proposal | | The formal procedure begins when a draft resolution is proposed and | sponsored, as required. | | A.1. Discussion and Amendment | |1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be | discussed. Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and | sponsored according to the requirements for a new resolution, or | directly by the proposer of the original resolution. |2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, | in which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed | to match. |3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of | the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer | of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and | will be voted on. |4. If an amendment accepted by the original proposer is not to the | liking of others, they may propose another amendment to reverse | the earlier change (again, they must meet the requirements for | proposer and sponsor(s).) |5. The proposer of a resolution may suggest changes to the wordings | of amendments; these take effect if the proposer of the amendment | agrees and none of the sponsors object. In this case the changed | amendments will be voted on instead of the originals. |6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor | errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or | changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects | within 24 hours. In this case the minimum discussion period is not | restarted. | | A.2. Calling for a vote | | 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call | for a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has | elapsed. | 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on | that resolution and all related amendments. | 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). | 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. ` -- All great discoveries are made by mistake. Y
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:17:46PM +, Robert Millan wrote: > 21:22 < vorlon> oh yes, that's right, *sending chocolate* makes us look > like a bunch of clowns > 21:34 < nyu> vorlon: don't put words in my mouth, thanks > 21:35 < vorlon> nyu: what should I put in your mouth? > > Let this serve as a warning for anyone who dares to complain that mr Langasek > is defamating him. > > P.S.: I never thought we'd get so low. Sad thing, really. Is your real first name Frank ? If you can't make the difference between a jest and defamation, I really can't help you. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp5z9YNtZz0M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:32:52AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 20:26 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit : > > I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us > > look like a bunch of clowns. > > > it makes us look like a bunch of clowns. > > > look like a bunch of clowns > > > a bunch of clowns > > > clowns > > > -- > > Robert Millan For those who didn't get Josselin's witty remark, this happens because I dared to complain that my words were being missrepresented by Steve Langasek on IRC, pretending that I said something I never did. 21:22 < vorlon> oh yes, that's right, *sending chocolate* makes us look like a bunch of clowns 21:34 < nyu> vorlon: don't put words in my mouth, thanks 21:35 < vorlon> nyu: what should I put in your mouth? Let this serve as a warning for anyone who dares to complain that mr Langasek is defamating him. P.S.: I never thought we'd get so low. Sad thing, really. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 20:26 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit : > I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us > look like a bunch of clowns. > it makes us look like a bunch of clowns. > look like a bunch of clowns > a bunch of clowns > clowns > -- > Robert Millan signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Moin, > > On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote: > > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for > > 60 days or more > > besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who determines > how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be > much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days > instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.) > > But probably thats a minor point too. Fine with me. What does everyone else think? In particular, would any of the people who object to this GR be less concerned if the time was increased? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
Moin, On Saturday 25 October 2008 20:31, Robert Millan wrote: > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for > 60 days or more besides that this proposal still has at least the problem of "who determines how" (that the DFSG has been violated) I have been thinking that I would be much more comfortable with it, if the timeline would be 120 or 180 days instead of 60. (Rationale: legalise moves much slower than code.) But probably thats a minor point too. regards, Holger pgpWHbOUlsUIZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
