Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations

[Brian May]

Robert Millan wrote:

  [...] the package must be moved
  from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
  


Why not remove the package from testing, same as any other release 
critical bug?


Or if you are worried about unstable containing non-DFSG stuff, why not 
remove the package altogether, and allow somebody to upload to non-free 
if deemed appropriate?


I think automatically moving it to non-free may not always be the best 
solution.


Brian May


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Charles Plessy]

Le Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:21:41AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> 
> As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this
> will be implemented within the next few weeks.

Joerg,

in your answer to Aurélien, you wrote that your announcment was "a new policy
to get implemented". But some of this policy does not need technical work to
take effect. Same that a DD who lost his GPG key is still a DD, some DME could
be appointed despite not having all the technical possibilities mentionned in
the new policy.

If by "none of this is implemented yet" you mean that you do not yet intend to
apply the new policy you decided, I think that we can indeed drop this vote to
save some work.

Nevertheless, it is not only the implementation that is to be suspended by this
GR, but the "new policy" itself. For the moment you are standing alone with it:
other delegates, the Project leader, or the Project secretary, whom you all
mentionned having consulted, none of them have supported the new policy
formally. On the other hand, there are many developers who either disagree with
the method or the contents or both, and even some that think that you do not
have the appropriate delegation for taking it.

We all have the same goal, making Debian more open, but disagree ont the means.
Let's discuss instead of just checking who has the right to impose his opinion
on the others.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


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

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:


> But like I said, let's proceed with the GR, I don't mind, it's merely
> disappointing.

By all means., No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op,
 anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose  whatsoever, except to kill
 any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of
 non-packagers into Debian. Why  is it useless? Because, as the
 announcement had said, there is nothing implemented yet, and so it
 would take a long while before this was done, giving people ample time
 for comment, and to convince the DAM's that modifications to the idea
 might be better, but that i not the Debian way. The Debian way is to
 find the least collegial way to express a difference of opinion.

manoj
-- 
Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>> 
>> I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):
>
> Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
> rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the
>   last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the
>   kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues
>   have not yet been addressed.
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny
>
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
>   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
>   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
>   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
>   allowed to do so.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

In case there was any doubt, I second this altered proposal as
 well.

manoj
-- 
<< WAIT >>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpeA2xk4iJ6w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Joerg Jaspert]

>> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
>> > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
>> > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
>> > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
>> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> This ballot is wrong.
>> It is *not* a membership reform.
> Suggested wording then?

None at all, drop the immediate vote.

As I already explained none of this is implemented yet. None of this
will be implemented within the next few weeks.

So, for the sanity (if any is left), could the proposer and all its
sponsors, agree to not have an immediate vote on this, as it
*WONT* do anything except creating needless work? It's more than enough
to have the normal vote procedure run.

Of course the secretary has to accept this, as its not written down in
constitution, but as this immediate vote is a NOOP, no matter what the
outcome is, it would only save them work to accept it.

-- 
bye, Joerg
00:00:11  goebelmeier: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html <-
warum steht hier 'mplayer'? ist das eine whishlist?


pgpSY0Gz6a8v7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:19AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think option 3 means the same as option 1.  The decision stands and we
> > can later overrule it by a full GR if we want.  Or does option 1 mean that
> > we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR?
> 
> It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K people automatically put the
> DAM decision on hold, and the vote needs to override that automation.
> Thus the FD choice is the same as the "decision stays on hold".

This vote is 4.2.2.4:
 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to
determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote
on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the
original decision will be delayed until then. There is no
quorum for this immediate procedural vote.

I had to read this a few times.  But now my understanding is that
the decision is on hold until the procedural vote, and that it will
be followed by a GR.  The procedural vote just says if the decision
stands or is put on hold between the procedural vote and the GR.


Kurt


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think option 3 means the same as option 1.  The decision stands and we
> can later overrule it by a full GR if we want.  Or does option 1 mean that
> we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR?

It's the reverse. The sponsorship of 2K people automatically put the
DAM decision on hold, and the vote needs to override that automation.
Thus the FD choice is the same as the "decision stays on hold".

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:20:30PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> Hi Neil 
> 
> Thanks for the prompt clarification. 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > >  
> > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines 
> > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > > > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > > > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines 
> > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > 
> > > What does "Further discussion" mean in the context of this vote? I think 
> > > there should be no "Further discussion" on the ballot, as it is not clear 
> > > what would happen if "Further discussion" wins. Would the decision still 
> > > be suspended or not?
> > > 
> > 
> > If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought
> > about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I
> > think this vote is rubbish' or similar.
> 
> Then basically Choice 2 and 3 are the same. I think you could also express
> 'I abstain' by not ranking any choices at all. But as long as everybody 
> agrees 
> on what happens if either of the options wins, this is only a minor problem.
> 
> > I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what
> > outcomes mean if you like.
> 
> I would like an explanaiton on the ballot to avoid confusion.

It seems to me that what has been proposed and sponsored is option 2, and
the constitutions seems to say that a GR should follow in that case.  I
see no reason to have option 1 on the ballot.

I assume if option 2 passes that a discussion period of 2 weeks will
follow this procedural vote?  I also assume that that GR already has
1 option on it, what Joerg's mail announced.

I think option 3 means the same as option 1.  The decision stands and we
can later overrule it by a full GR if we want.  Or does option 1 mean that
we'll also have this 2 week discussion period followed by a full GR?


Kurt


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Peter Palfrader]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Neil McGovern wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > 
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > 
> > This ballot is wrong.
> > It is *not* a membership reform.
> 
> Suggested wording then?

Since the only really new thing in this proposal, and this is what it's
all about at its core, is the creation of Debian Contributors as a
defined set of people where previously they were just not DDs, maybe

"Proposal on Creation of Debian Contributors delayed until GR decided by GR"
"Proposal on Creation of Debian Contributors stands until decided by GR"

-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:48PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> 
> I don't understand the difference between those two.
> 

At http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/10/msg5.html,
Joerg Jaspert posted a mail. There's currently a GR to reverse the
decision in that mail[0].
As we've received >= 10 seconds to the GR, and the GR mentions the
'revocation-until-vote' clause of 4.2.2, the decision is suspended.
A vote needs to be called to determine if this suspension stands until
the GR results come in.

Voting for Choice 1 means that Joerg may continue doing whatever
decisions he may or may not have made until the result of the GR.
Voting for Choice 2 means that he can't pursue it until the GR results
are in (at a minimum).

Hope this explains,

Neil

[0] Whether it contains any decisions or not is left as an exercise to
the reader, I'm not going to make that judgement call.

[1] I am *slightly* annoyed that clause 4.2.2 is being invoked at this
time, it means a lot more work running votes and I'm not convinced
there's anything to gain, but *shrug*.

-- 
 ETOOMUCHSPANISHTOOFAST


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

Hi Neil 

Thanks for the prompt clarification. 

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >  
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > 
> > > --
> > 
> > What does "Further discussion" mean in the context of this vote? I think 
> > there should be no "Further discussion" on the ballot, as it is not clear 
> > what would happen if "Further discussion" wins. Would the decision still 
> > be suspended or not?
> > 
> 
> If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought
> about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I
> think this vote is rubbish' or similar.

Then basically Choice 2 and 3 are the same. I think you could also express
'I abstain' by not ranking any choices at all. But as long as everybody agrees 
on what happens if either of the options wins, this is only a minor problem.

> I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what
> outcomes mean if you like.

I would like an explanaiton on the ballot to avoid confusion.

Gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:49:33PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >  
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > 
> > > --
> > 
> > What does "Further discussion" mean in the context of this vote? I think 
> > there should be no "Further discussion" on the ballot, as it is not clear 
> > what would happen if "Further discussion" wins. Would the decision still 
> > be suspended or not?
> > 
> 
> If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought
> about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I
> think this vote is rubbish' or similar.
> I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what
> outcomes mean if you like.
> 
> Neil
> 
> [0] It's delayed at the moment. This is a vote to override that
> essentially.

So what is the difference between 2 and 3?  In case of 2 we already
agree to have an other GR?


Kurt


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.2028 +0100]:
> [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided

I don't understand the difference between those two.

-- 
 .''`.   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
 
"of course the music is a great difficulty.
 you see, if one plays good music, people don't listen,
 and if one plays bad music people don't talk."
-- oscar wilde


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Re: Secretary? Delegate?

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or is Manoj is still the secretary and did he delegate something to you?
> What got delegated exactly in that case?

See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
> > send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.
> 
> You have a total of 3 times "proceedural" instead of "procedural" in this
> mail.
> 

Updated in the actual ballot.

Thanks,
Neil
-- 
* stockholm bangs head against budget
 outsch
 h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself
 stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>   The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers

Is this GR trying to force the dak developers to implement a way for
this to be done without any intervention from the ftpmasters, or is
this just shorthand for "any developer may make a NMU moving the
package to non-free, which the ftpmasters should handle as a priority
item"?

What if the ftpmasters won't move the package?

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:23:37PM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
>  
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > 
> > --
> 
> What does "Further discussion" mean in the context of this vote? I think 
> there should be no "Further discussion" on the ballot, as it is not clear 
> what would happen if "Further discussion" wins. Would the decision still 
> be suspended or not?
> 

If Further discussion wins, the decision remains delayed[0]. I thought
about removing it, but it's inclusion serves as a 'I abstain' or a 'I
think this vote is rubbish' or similar.
I can either drop it, or include a bit of text in the ballot about what
outcomes mean if you like.

Neil

[0] It's delayed at the moment. This is a vote to override that
essentially.
-- 
* Maulkin cries
 NB: rm -rf /chroots/sarge while /home is mounted at
/chroots/sarge/home is NOT-A-GOOD-THING(tm)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:21:41PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 
> 
> > IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
  ^^^
  I know it's an 'or'.
> > delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
> > not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
> > is actually §8.3:
> >
> > 8.3. Procedure
> >
> > Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
> > implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
> 
> Delegates may make decisions as they see fit,. They should
>  attempt to implement good technical decisions. Use the or
>  alternative. The follow consensus opinion is an or.
[...]
> So, no constitutional violation here.

There is no formal constitutional violation, I believe the spirit of the
constitution on the other hand has been totally forgotten. I don't see
what Joerg does as much a technical problem as a social one, and in that
sense, you can't take the first alternative.

But like I said, let's proceed with the GR, I don't mind, it's merely
disappointing.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgp3D8BfcuMEG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:11:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
> > 
> >  Voting period starts  00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
> >  Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday,  15th Nov 2008
> Also, our constitution says:
>   If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original
>   decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted.
> 
> Wouldn't that be easier?

Probably. Ask the original delegate :)

Neil
-- 
 the hacklab room is the one with a pirate flag, and a venezuelan flag,
and a third flag
 the other hacklab room is the "other hacklab room"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Secretary? Delegate? [Was: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.]

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
> > a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
> > called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
> > as per 4.2.2 of the constitution.
> 
> Has something changed to who is now the secretary?  Did I miss some
> announcement?  Atleast the webpage still mentions Manoj as secretary,
> and I saw a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with his key.
> 
> Or is Manoj is still the secretary and did he delegate something to you?
> What got delegated exactly in that case?
> 


http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html

Hope this helps,
Neil
-- 
 'Maybe you can try to find a nice hotel by shouting in the Mexico DF
streets "where could a gringo find a decent hotel in this dirty third
world lame excuse for a country?". I'm sure the people will rush to help
you, as we south americans love to be called third world in a demeaning 
way.'


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Didier Raboud]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  (...)
>  (one of the people who could ruin this vote is going away for a busness
---><
>  trip this week, and the other one is new at this task).
>  (...)
> manoj

You meant "run", huh ?

-- 
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −
http://www.swisslinux.org


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:31:15PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> > [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> > [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> > [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> This ballot is wrong.
> It is *not* a membership reform.
> 

Suggested wording then?

Neil
-- 
Drinking coca cola is the most unhealthy thing you can do; it is
healthier to drink tap water than coca cola : )
-- Sergio Cu�llar Vald�s


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
> send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.

You have a total of 3 times "proceedural" instead of "procedural" in this
mail.


Kurt


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

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:


> IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
> delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
> not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
> is actually §8.3:
>
> 8.3. Procedure
>
> Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
> implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.

Delegates may make decisions as they see fit,. They should
 attempt to implement good technical decisions. Use the or
 alternative. The follow consensus opinion is an or.


> FWIW I believe the mail on dda fails that in so many levels… that indeed
> I believe the GR isn't really needed and that either the secretary or
> the DPL should have his word in this. But oh well, if one want an
> humiliating GR for that matter, let's do it.

Urm, what word do you want from secretary? I have already stated
 that as secretary I thought that this did not violate the constitution,
 and that DAM can decide who is or is not a DD, and that there already
 are mapping from the set of developers to capabilities which are
 non-uniform, and this added nothing but a semi formal mapping of
 subsets of developers to capabilities which is definitely a power that
 can be delegated.

So, no constitutional violation here.

manoj
-- 
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year
ago." Bernard Berenson
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Joerg Jaspert]

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This ballot is wrong.
It is *not* a membership reform.

-- 
bye, Joerg
"That's just f***ing great, now the bar for being a cool guy in free
software just got raised. It used to be you just had to write a million
lines of useful code. Now you've got to get a subpoena from SCO to be cool."


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:


> Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says:

Because it takes time to set up a vote, and it requires
 attention from the vote taker at the beginning and end of the vote, and
 the times reflect the prep time required (one of the people who could
 ruin this vote is going away for a busness trip this week, and the
 other one is new at this task).

>   If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine
>   whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is
>   made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be
>   delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural
>   vote.
>
> 5 days sounds like a pretty strange definition of "immediate" ;)

The work on the votig has started immediately , as far as I can
 see.  Vote setups normally take a couple of days, at the best of
 times -- and sometimes longer.

Are you sure you know which color the bike shed should be
 painted?

manoj
-- 
Truth has no special time of its own.  Its hour is now -- always. Albert
Schweitzer
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Gaudenz Steinlin]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
 
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
> [   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
> [   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
> [   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> --

What does "Further discussion" mean in the context of this vote? I think 
there should be no "Further discussion" on the ballot, as it is not clear 
what would happen if "Further discussion" wins. Would the decision still 
be suspended or not?

Gaudenz

-- 
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~


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

Secretary? Delegate? [Was: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.]

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:28:43PM +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
> a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
> called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
> as per 4.2.2 of the constitution.

Has something changed to who is now the secretary?  Did I miss some
announcement?  Atleast the webpage still mentions Manoj as secretary,
and I saw a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with his key.

Or is Manoj is still the secretary and did he delegate something to you?
What got delegated exactly in that case?


Kurt


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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Monday 27 October 2008 20:36, Robert Millan wrote:
>   - We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> out - for this reason, we will
> - treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process
> *and*
> - deliver
>   - firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for
> installation (like all udebs) *and*
>   - firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian
> Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is
> distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.

Aeh, if we'd vote on this, would that mean that we could deliver the firmware 
in udebs but not in debs?

Not all debian installers use udebs, fai for example doesnt and I'm sure there 
are others...


regards,
Holger


pgpCkZfH8ovyo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 27/10/08 at 19:28 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> =DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=
> 
>  Voting period starts  00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
>  Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday,  15th Nov 2008

Why should we wait until next sunday? The constitution says:
  If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine
  whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is
  made or whether the implementation of the original decision will be
  delayed until then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural
  vote.

5 days sounds like a pretty strange definition of "immediate" ;)

Also, our constitution says:
  If the Project Leader (or the Delegate) withdraws the original
  decision, the vote becomes moot, and is no longer conducted.

Wouldn't that be easier?
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):

Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):

Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
  community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
  issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the
  last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the
  kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues
  have not yet been addressed.

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
  made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
  release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
  out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
  best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
  necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
  the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
  allowed to do so.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

-- 
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: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:36:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > (Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
> > complies with the DFSG" a no-op?)
> 
> The license for a sourceless blob can be GPL or BSD, which are licenses
> that comply with the DFSG, or it could be any sort of non-free license
> (including lack of license).  Of course, the code itself wouldn't comply
> with DFSG #2, but the license would.
> 
> Anyway, this specific text is already tested and "known to work" so I think
> this proves it is solid :-)

Though, if the "as long as the license complies with the DFSG" doesn't really
have any effect (other than what's already covered by "we are legally allowed
to do so"), I think it is confusing and shouldn't be in the text.

I propose the following alternatative to "Option 2" (removes last sentence):

Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
  community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
  issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
  made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
  release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
  out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
  best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
  necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
  the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
  allowed to do so.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

-- 
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: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Rémi Vanicat]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I propose the following General Resolution.  If you wish to second only one
> or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
> can account them separately.
>
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>   non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
>   been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
>   free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>   release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
>   system is complete.
>
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny
>
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
>   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
>   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
>   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
>   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
>   license that complies with the DFSG.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

I hereby second both the first and second proposition

- -- 
Rémi Vanicat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFJBhcfRmmq/NCejAsRAtjPAJ9sNTEnYYAoM4NfaAspXNx+mI/abgCbBAsG
695w+deC0o2PrCVWqldscec=
=8ysi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 08:22:57PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> >4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> >   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as 
> > a
> >   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> >   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> >   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
> >   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
> >   license that complies with the DFSG.
> 
> Sorry, I fail to parse this.  You lost me somewhere around 'like all
> udebs'.  Could you please explain this in something that does not try to
> compete with german sentences in length? :)

It's the same from http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 with s/Etch/Lenny/g.
A decomposition would be:

  - We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit out
  - for this reason, we will
- treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process
*and*
- deliver
  - firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for installation 
(like all udebs)
  *and*
  - firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny
  as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is 
distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.

> (Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
> complies with the DFSG" a no-op?)

The license for a sourceless blob can be GPL or BSD, which are licenses
that comply with the DFSG, or it could be any sort of non-free license
(including lack of license).  Of course, the code itself wouldn't comply
with DFSG #2, but the license would.

Anyway, this specific text is already tested and "known to work" so I think
this proves it is solid :-)

-- 
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: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Jeff Carr]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:26, Lennart Sorensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL

Hardly perfectly readable - I put up code there too :)

> code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it.  So what was
> your point again?  Besides FPGA's can work with eeproms, so no binary
> blob has to be distributed with the OS to work with the device.

Which is often not the case on cheap devices (often usb) because of
cost, space, power, etc for another chip.


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

Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

Hi all,

As 2K developers have now seconded this GR, and the GR itself calls for
a suspension of a Delegate's decision, an immediate procedural vote is
called for if the decision is to stand while the GR process is followed,
as per 4.2.2 of the constitution.

Attached below is the draft ballot for this proceedural vote. Please
send comments to myself 24h before voting opens.

NB: This is a draft ballot. Voting is not yet open. The vote.debian.org
pages may not yet have been updated.

Thanks,
Neil

=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=DRAFT=

 Voting period starts  00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,02nd Nov 2008
 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday,  15th Nov 2008

The following ballot is for voting on a Proceedural Vote on Suspension of
the changes of the Project's membership procedures. The vote is being
conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard
Resolution Procedure, and section 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution.

The details of the general resolution can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002

You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

HOW TO VOTE

First, read the full text of the GR. 

Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the
brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or
larger than 3. Continue till you reach your last choice. You may skip
numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make
fall in the range 1<= X <= 3).

To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further discussion" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "Further
discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
discussion choice by the voting software).

Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Don't worry
about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) 
with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may optionally encrypt
your ballot using the public key included below.  Also, note that you can
get a fresh ballot any time by sending a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the subject "proc_newnm_immediate"


- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
a1ea0fab-9ff7-4466-a951-99c712df8192
[   ] Choice 1: Decision on membership reform stands until GR decided
[   ] Choice 2: Decision on membership reform delayed until GR decided
[   ] Choice 3: Further discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--

The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by Devotee (DEbian VOTe
EnginE) using the vote key created for this vote. The public key
for the vote, signed by the Assistant Project secretary, is appended below.

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
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Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:
> 
> 
> > Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> > ~~
> >
> >1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> >   community (Social Contract #4);
> >
> >2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> >   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> >
> >3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> > progress
> >   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> > Etch
> >   release in Lenny
> >
> >4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> >   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as 
> > a
> >   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> >   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> >   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
> >   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
> >   license that complies with the DFSG.
> >
> > (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 
> > majority)
> 
> While I have seconded this proposal, how about a change in
>  wording:
> 
> ,
> |  1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> | community (Social Contract #4);
> | 
> |  2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> | issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the
> | last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the
> | kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues
> | have not yet been addressed.
> | 
> |  3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
> | progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
> | relative to the Etch release in Lenny
> | 
> |  4. We give priority  to the timely release of  Lenny over sorting every
> | bit  out; for  this  reason,  we will  treat  removal of  sourceless
> | firmware as a best-effort process,  and deliver firmware in udebs as
> | long  as it  is necessary  for  installation (like  all udebs),  and
> | firmware included in  the kernel itself as part  of Debian Lenny, as
> | long  as we  are  legally allowed  to  do so,  and  the firmware  is
> | distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.
> `
> 
> The changes are just to item 2., which is expanded to explain a
>  little more about the progress we actually made in the kernel, and also
>  to explain these are new issues (not something we have been ignoring
>  for years).
> 
> I would like to propose this as a formal amendment to the
>  proposal, and hope it would be acceptable to the proposer.

I accept and second it.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Peter Palfrader]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
>   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
>   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
>   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
>   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
>   license that complies with the DFSG.

Sorry, I fail to parse this.  You lost me somewhere around 'like all
udebs'.  Could you please explain this in something that does not try to
compete with german sentences in length? :)


(Also, isn't "we allow sourceless firmware ... as long as the license
complies with the DFSG" a no-op?)

Thanks,
Peter
-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:46:14AM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> I'm willing to stake my reputation on betting you are _not_ a firmware
> engineer. Your are totally wrong if you think all firmware blobs can
> be replaced by human readable source.
> 
> There is hardware, for which to function, will always, for the
> lifetime of the equipment, require a firmware blob to operate. This
> will always be the case; there will never be a human readable version.
> It will never be possible to compile it (with non-free compilers) from
> source code. There seems to be the belief that there is some scary
> bogeyman at the end of this tunnel; some deliberate evil firmware
> engineer who refuses to release the "source" for the blob. This is
> hardly the case.
> 
> In fact, the exact opposite is true; the most free pieces of hardware
> in the world require a firmware blob! A good example: try out the pci
> core from opencores.org.  Even in that case, where you have the logic
> for the actual chip, you still have no choice but to distribute a
> firmware blob anyway.

I would expect anything on opencores.org to be perfectly readable VHDL
code, which is the prefered format for manipulating it.  So what was
your point again?  Besides FPGA's can work with eeproms, so no binary
blob has to be distributed with the OS to work with the device.

> Going and flapping around and irritating hardware engineers with
> totally impossible requests (Give us your psoc firmware sourcecode or
> you suck! Thanks, the debian project.) makes us look like a bunch of
> clueless and irrational software engineers. You think there must be
> some magic way, well there is not.

For some firmware it does make sense, for others it does not.

> I doubt anyone reading this uses coreboot which means that the first
> instruction anyone ran today was a binary only firmware blob. Where is
> all your concern about that? Doubly annoying is that that firmware is
> actually x86 code and it is possible to get source code that can be
> compiled with gcc. That would actually be fruitful and practical.

Yes the BIOS doesn't include source code, but there also is no need for
Debian to distribute the BIOS code in main for Debian to be able to
install and run on my system.

This whole debate is about Debian having to ship said firmware, not
about whether hardware needs firmware or not.  That is a different
debate, but not one that directly involves the Debian distribution.

So much as closed source binaries and firmware on flash chips in raid
controllers may be annoying, it does not in any way affect the freeness
of the code _distributed_ by Debian.

-- 
Len Sorensen


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

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Philipp Kern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern 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.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
-- 
 .''`.  Philipp KernDebian Developer
: :' :  http://philkern.de Release Assistant
`. `'   xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stable Release Manager
  `-finger pkern/[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Pierre Habouzit]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:39:27PM +, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.1734 +0100]:
> > > The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.
> > 
> > You are wrong. The changes I propose are all well within the DAMs 
> > competency.
> 
> Please back up this claim a formal statement or delegation
> specifying your competencies, or an official description of the DAM
> role.

IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
is actually §8.3:

8.3. Procedure

Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.

FWIW I believe the mail on dda fails that in so many levels… that indeed
I believe the GR isn't really needed and that either the secretary or
the DPL should have his word in this. But oh well, if one want an
humiliating GR for that matter, let's do it.


-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOOhttp://www.madism.org


pgpJe7ieMkFEJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Joerg Jaspert wrote:

On 11551 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:


  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)].



I do not understand why we need to do this at all. According to [0],
Joerg has been "empowered to create and remove developer accounts
according to the New Maintainer procedure." He has not been
empowered to introduce new membership classes or restructure
membership in any other way.


I think this was the big error on Joerg proposal: giving different
names (classes) to non-maintainer developers.
If we call the non-maintainer developers (the DME) DD, all the proposal
fits without doubts in the current structure.

It would be one more change of NM procedure, as we
had in last years.

ciao
cate


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

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:13:22PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
> > 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)].
> 
> I do not understand why we need to do this at all. According to [0],
> Joerg has been "empowered to create and remove developer accounts
> according to the New Maintainer procedure." He has not been
> empowered to introduce new membership classes or restructure
> membership in any other way.

I wonder why a _Debian Account Manager_ is limited to follow the "New
Maintainer procedure", if the NM procedure is nothing more then a
process meant to _help_ the DAM (as in reducing the work load by
splitting it across several people). That is - to my knowledge - the
whole sense of the NM-processes and is also what it states on its page
[1]:

"We are a group of Debian developers who have volunteered to assist the
Debian Account Managers in processing new applicants to be Debian
maintainers. "

Best Regards,
Patrick


[1] https://nm.debian.org/


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

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.27.1734 +0100]:
> > The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.
> 
> You are wrong. The changes I propose are all well within the DAMs competency.

Please back up this claim a formal statement or delegation
specifying your competencies, or an official description of the DAM
role.

-- 
 .''`.   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
 
"we americans, we're a simple people... 
 but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities."
 -- robin williams, good morning vietnam


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Re: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11551 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:

>>   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)].

> I do not understand why we need to do this at all. According to [0],
> Joerg has been "empowered to create and remove developer accounts
> according to the New Maintainer procedure." He has not been
> empowered to introduce new membership classes or restructure
> membership in any other way.

> 0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/04/msg7.html

You are wrong. Both in the term of "DAM has no competency to do this"
and in the delegation itself.
Note that the above is jut making something clear(er) which hasnt been
that before. I was delegated DAM years ago by Martin, the relevant mail
is  http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/12/msg00277.html

> The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.

You are wrong. The changes I propose are all well within the DAMs competency.


-- 
bye, Joerg
#debian.de @ OFTC
(01:38)  hui, hier wird sonntags gechattet :)
(01:39)  ja, aber nur zwischen 1:35 und 1:45, wenn der Sonntag der 1. im 
Monat ist :)
(01:39)  wasn hier los? activity :)


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

DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure (was: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.)

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.10.25.0310 +0200]:
> 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)].

I do not understand why we need to do this at all. According to [0],
Joerg has been "empowered to create and remove developer accounts
according to the New Maintainer procedure." He has not been
empowered to introduce new membership classes or restructure
membership in any other way.

0. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/04/msg7.html

The proposed changes are outside of the delegate's competencies.
Thus, a GR would need to decide them, but we definitely do not need
a GR to suspend them, because they aren't anything but suggestions
and could not be enacted without the developer collective agreeing.

-- 
 .''`.   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
 
"if there's anything more important than my ego,
 i want it caught and shot now."
-- zaphod beeblebrox


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Bas Wijnen]

Hi,

I second the options quoted below.  That's the first one for the
pre-lenny GR, and the first one of the post-lenny GR.  (While I agree
that this is important, I don't think we should set procedures in the
SC; if this is to be written down in a foundational document, it must be
the constitution IMO.)

Thanks,
Bas

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:23:05PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
> 
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
> 
>2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>   non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
>   been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
>   free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>   release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
>   system is complete.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:56:12PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> Option 1 (set an upper limit)
> ~
> 
> The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
> after Lenny is released:
> 
>   When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
>   180 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).
> 
>   The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
>   moving packages in distributions other than "unstable" or "experimental" may
>   still require approval by the corresponding Release Team).  When this 
> happens,
>   any known DFSG violation in the package must be resolved before the package
>   can be moved back into Debian.

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:


> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny
>
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
>   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
>   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
>   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
>   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
>   license that complies with the DFSG.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

While I have seconded this proposal, how about a change in
 wording:

,
|  1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
| community (Social Contract #4);
| 
|  2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
| issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the
| last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the
| kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues
| have not yet been addressed.
| 
|  3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the
| progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian
| relative to the Etch release in Lenny
| 
|  4. We give priority  to the timely release of  Lenny over sorting every
| bit  out; for  this  reason,  we will  treat  removal of  sourceless
| firmware as a best-effort process,  and deliver firmware in udebs as
| long  as it  is necessary  for  installation (like  all udebs),  and
| firmware included in  the kernel itself as part  of Debian Lenny, as
| long  as we  are  legally allowed  to  do so,  and  the firmware  is
| distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG.
`

The changes are just to item 2., which is expanded to explain a
 little more about the progress we actually made in the kernel, and also
 to explain these are new issues (not something we have been ignoring
 for years).

I would like to propose this as a formal amendment to the
 proposal, and hope it would be acceptable to the proposer.

manoj
-- 
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices."-- William James
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpLfmyGi7aHu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

> Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
> ~~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>   non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
>   been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
>   free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>   release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
>   system is complete.
>
> Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
> ~~
>
>1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>   community (Social Contract #4);
>
>2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
>   issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
>
>3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the 
> progress
>   made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the 
> Etch
>   release in Lenny
>
>4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
>   out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
>   best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
>   necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
>   the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
>   allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
>   license that complies with the DFSG.
>
> (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

I second The proposals labelled Options 1 and Option 2 quoted
 above.

manoj
-- 
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? Will Harvey
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


pgpydqNlvdmuC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Call for seconds: post-Lenny enforceability of DFSG violations

[Robert Millan]

Hi,

I propose the following General Resolution.  If you wish to second only one
or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
can account them separately.

Note: Both options are only concerned with resolving the DFSG enforceability
  problem in long-term.  Therefore they don't take any effect untill after
  Lenny has been released (I just proposed a separate GR for deciding how
  we deal with this problem in Lenny).

Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~

The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:

  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
  180 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).

  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
  moving packages in distributions other than "unstable" or "experimental" may
  still require approval by the corresponding Release Team).  When this happens,
  any known DFSG violation in the package must be resolved before the package
  can be moved back into Debian.


Option 2 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC)
~~~

The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -  1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 27 Oct 2008 15:52:14 -
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
  free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
  system require the use of a non-free component.

+   
+ In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+ following rule is to be followed:
+   
+   
+ When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines for 180 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).
+   
+   
+ The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers 
(however,
+ moving packages in distributions other than "unstable" or 
"experimental" may
+ still require approval by the corresponding Release Team).  When this 
happens,
+ any known DFSG violation in the package must be resolved before the 
package
+ can be moved back into Debian.
+   
   
   We will give back to the free software community


(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

-- 
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: Call for seconds: Revised ballot

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, Oct 27 2008, MJ Ray wrote:

> Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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".
> [...]
>> 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.
>
> Please would you regard each option as a resolution and allow people
> to second all of them, or some subset of them if they wish?

Sure. The constitution says that proposals must be seconded
 separately, but not that oe may not bundle multiple proposals in the
 same email. So, we can take the mail that Robert sent, and either
 second all proposals, or a subset, and the proposer would need to track
 the seconds for each proposal.

> On a related point, I've been disappointed for a while that amendments
> are used to replace (rather than amend) proposals.  I believe
> requiring people to pick X or Y or Z (instead of X + Y - Z) makes it
> much harder to develop a consensus.  Would any DDs be willing to
> support a GR that requires amendments to keep a non-trivial part of
> the proposal? Otherwise, it should be a new alternative resolution.

You can propose an amendment that says  X + Y - Z, and have it
 on the ballot.  No constitutional amendment needed.

manoj
-- 
Grabel's Law: 2 is not equal to 3 -- not even for large values of 2.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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

Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

[Robert Millan]

I propose the following General Resolution.  If you wish to second only one
or two of the options, please indicate which ones clearly, so the Secretary
can account them separately.

Option 1 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
  community (Social Contract #4);

   2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
  non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has
  been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a
  free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
  release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating
  system is complete.


Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
  community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
  issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
  made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
  release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
  out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
  best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
  necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
  the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
  allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
  license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 3 (allow Lenny to release with any DFSG violations)
~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
  community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
  issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
  made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
  Etch release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
  out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
  best-effort process.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

-- 
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: Call for seconds: Revised ballot

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 04:07:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180.  If someone feels strongly enough
> that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of
> course.

Now that I think, this means the options that only included my proposed
reform would not have the effect of preventing Lenny from releasing with
non-free code.

Since sorting that out would require even more complexity in the ballot, I
will propose a GR that only deals with what we do about Lenny, and re-send
my reform proposal later on.  This also makes it easier for others to select
what they want to second.

-- 
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

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:07:10AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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?

Since noone else replied, I'll pick 180.  If someone feels strongly enough
that the number should be different, they can send their own proposal, of
course.

-- 
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

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:27:28AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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".
> [...]
> > 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.
> 
> Please would you regard each option as a resolution and allow people
> to second all of them, or some subset of them if they wish?

I understand from the Secretary's explanation that this is so, and will send
a new mail with all of them, asking seconders to pick a subset if they want.

-- 
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.

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:42:08AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 
> Should we add something to the GR to address this problem? Or simply
> explain the reasoning behind the GR by different means, during the vote?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to explain our respective POVs separately
(and in fact I just did).

-- 
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.

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:30:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 
> > I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
> > opinions would start, with focus on convergence.
> 
> This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a] discussion.

Hi Joerg,

I read your recent blog entry on the topic, and I think you make interesting
points defending your proposal.  From my perspective (i.e. the perspective of
someone who isn't very familiarized with the areas of Debian affected by your
proposed changes), the whole thing looked confusing, and I didn't know (still
don't!) whether I would support it or not.

So, I totally support you in defending your proposal, but I think it could've
been a lot better if those points were made _before_ the announcement.  The
reason I seconded this GR is because, one way or the other, I think a healthy
reform is one that is endorsed by the majority of developers [1] (and if the
proposed vote doesn't pass, that is a form of endorsement too).

I'd like to encourage you to bring this discussion forward, and push for your
proposed changes to gain acceptance.  My opinion, right now, is that I have no
clue about what they imply, and will most likely not vote or send a no-op
ballot.

[1] or members, or people with voting rights, whatever..

-- 
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.

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:

> I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
> opinions would start, with focus on convergence.

This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a] discussion.

-- 
bye, Joerg
A.D. 1492:
Christopher Columbus arrives in what he believes to be India, but
which RMS informs him is actually GNU/India.


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

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Rémi Vanicat]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
> enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
> resolution is:
> --
>  - 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
- -- 

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ 

iD8DBQFJBbsKRmmq/NCejAsRArIuAJ98TcMzmkdTacfsP+lMWMYJixpu/gCdE3aj
GVW75eCbnHCNstQnKhFYoIY=
=XFzY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:31:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> That makes 1 proposer + 6 seconders = 7 sponsors for that GR. We would
> need 3 more for the decisions to be put on hold immediately.

A seconder is a sponsor, so you'd need 4 more. The original proposer
cannot also sponsor the item:
  A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer
  and sponsored by at least K other Developers.

However, I also see yourself and Bastian Blank have sponsored this, you
you need three more for an instant vote to be triggered on if the
decision should be delayed until the GR is over or not.[0]

Neil
[0] Which has a voting period of two weeks, but can be varied by 1 week
by the DPL. DPL, would you be willing to do so if this situation occurs?
-- 
 I'll run a script, posting some of my wisdoms from time to time to 
the channel ;)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures

[Jurij Smakov]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern 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.
-- 
Jurij Smakov   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/  KeyID: C99E03CC


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Bastian Blank]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:35:23AM +, Neil McGovern 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.

Bastian

-- 
Dismissed.  That's a Star Fleet expression for, "Get out."
-- Capt. Kathryn Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager, "The Cloud"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 27/10/08 at 10:35 +, Neil McGovern 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, as I also seconded the previous version[1].
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00110.html

That makes 1 proposer + 6 seconders = 7 sponsors for that GR. We would
need 3 more for the decisions to be put on hold immediately.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Discussion period: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.

[Neil McGovern]

Hi,

The message in [EMAIL PROTECTED] has received
enough seconds to start the discussion period. The text of the
resolution is:
--
 - 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.
--

It has been proposed by Charles Plessy, and seconds have been received
for this version by MJ Ray, Robert Millan, Baz Zoetekouw, Frans Pop and
Amaya Rodrigo Sastre.

Further details will appear at http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002
shortly.

Thanks,
Neil
-- 
* stockholm bangs head against budget
 outsch
 h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself
 stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Call for seconds: Revised ballot

[MJ Ray]

Debian Project Secretary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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".
[...]
> 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.

Please would you regard each option as a resolution and allow people
to second all of them, or some subset of them if they wish?

I think that the options are mutually incompatible (feel free to rule
otherwise), so will be on the same ballot anyway, so is there any
benefit in making people send N seconding emails when they want to
second all those options being on the ballot?  If they object to one,
they can omit it from their sponsorship.


On a related point, I've been disappointed for a while that amendments
are used to replace (rather than amend) proposals.  I believe
requiring people to pick X or Y or Z (instead of X + Y - Z) makes it
much harder to develop a consensus.  Would any DDs be willing to
support a GR that requires amendments to keep a non-trivial part of
the proposal? Otherwise, it should be a new alternative resolution.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


--
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.

[Charles Plessy]

Le Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:42:08AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> 
> I fear that this GR will look like "vote yes if you don't want change."
> I'm personally fine with changes to the membership process. But I want
> them to be decided after an healthy, public, discussion, and probably
> also a vote (because we are not going to agree on which proposal is the
> best one).
> 
> Should we add something to the GR to address this problem? Or simply
> explain the reasoning behind the GR by different means, during the vote?

Hi Lucas,

There are definitely much more constructive things happening on the
debian-project list. Since they are completely ignored, I think that this GR is
still useful to prevent escalation in the "fait accompli". For instance email
address "@contributor.debian.net" could be attributed, increasing confusion
about wether the different subclasses of members of the Project have been
created or not. In that case, a couple of more seconds would suspend the
decision.

I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
opinions would start, with focus on convergence. For the moment, there has
always been this or that person to write things close enough to what I think
that I did not feel like adding to the noise by sending "me too" messages.
Also, it is very important for the conflict to cool down that we do not start
to simply count who is behind each of the two main propositions.

So to cut a long story short, I hope that this GR proposal will be a Rubicon
that nobody is willing to cross, so I do not feel like tweaking it. I am fine
with a status quo while progress is done on the debian-project list.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
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.

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/10/08 at 10:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have integrated the changes suggested by Frans, Robert, and aspell
> (wdiff attached).
> 
> Here is the amended proposal:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
>  - 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.

I've thought about this a bit more.

I fear that this GR will look like "vote yes if you don't want change."
I'm personally fine with changes to the membership process. But I want
them to be decided after an healthy, public, discussion, and probably
also a vote (because we are not going to agree on which proposal is the
best one).

Should we add something to the GR to address this problem? Or simply
explain the reasoning behind the GR by different means, during the vote?
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


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

Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:27:24PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> 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.

This has nothing to do with the core problem, which is we're telling our users
that these blobs are free software (i.e. we're liing to them), and in some
cases even exposing them to legal risk by having them accept the GPL when they
can't comply with it (since they don't have the source code).

Nevertheless, I'll give you my personal opinion.

When that software is in a ROM, what prevents the user from modifiing it is not
a matter of freedom, it's purely technical.  Understanding how the device works
(including, but not limited to, by reading firmware) is IMO a freedom issue,
but it has nothing to do with Debian.  You might as well consider it a freedom
issue if you can't read the source code in your NAS, but just because a Debian
box is connected to the same network it doesn't mean it's Debian's bussiness.

When that software is in writable memory, it means the vendor retained its
ability to modify it, but it didn't want others to have this ability. Therefore,
although they have to ship the firmware, they rely on obfuscation to prevent
end users from having those rights.  This has more implications that it might
seem.  It turns out, that they'll tend to consider the unified firmware+driver
combo a derived product, and the interface between them is blurred.  They might
adjust this interface anytime they want, and it's very likely they'll find it
useful to restrain our freedom by moving complexity from the free side to the
obfuscated one (Intel has likely done this with the iwl driver).

Also, your argument assumes that vendors are uncapable of fixing the problem,
and only able to move it from one way to the other.  I disagree;  I think
pressure can push them in the right direction, which is telling users how
their own devices work.

-- 
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]