Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will change, and we'll have this discussion again in a few years when squeeze is looking like releasing. I think it would be worth it to take some time to draft an updated social contract given the difficulties we've seen in the debate. I like most of what I've seen in your proposal (except the wording on the point about publishing any private stuff). I would suggest you to let vacation time pass, and then try submitting it again in a new thread (or maybe post-lenny, up to you). Whatever you choose, I'll try to share my comments/participate in the discussion anyway. I'm not sure the whole rewrite is necessary, it might be easier to modify less and give separate rationale for each change. But honestly I haven't looked enough into it yet to comment more than that. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to release... If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would seem accurate. For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can misjudge it... The release team has the authority to release Lenny. At whatever point they wish and feel good with it. They provide a list of what criteria need to be met for that. For the package contents of that release, they take whatever we, all the maintainers uploading packages, and what we, the ftpmasters, put into the archive. Now, if one dislikes a decision of a delegate, one can run a GR against it. Somehow we just had one, and the outcome does say they can release with the kernel that is currently in Lenny. Like it or not, but thats the option that won, no matter how fucked up the ballot may have been. Dislike this outcome? Do Debian a bad service and run yet another GR against Lenny. Or, to have something new, do such things right *after* a release, not right before one.[1] [1] But that wouldn't be half as fun complaining, wouldnt hurt Debian as much, eh? -- bye, Joerg lamont is there a tag for won't be fixed until sarge+1? sam depends whether the BTS is year 2037 compliant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]: I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that gNewSense already exists, and that then, even Stephen Fry (let alone Richard Stallman) would endorse you. http://www.gnewsense.org/ -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: La Buena Vida - No lo esperaba de mí -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
Hi, On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the social contract lower than the choices that chose to release. I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. So what would such a SC look like? I am impressed by your well thought proposal. Thanks! Here are my comments to it. We previously had a vote to revert the SC to 1.0, and while it defeated reaffirming the current SC, it lost to the option of simply postponing it. Maybe with nearly four years of experience since then, that's changed though. I hope people have learned from this :-) Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much: we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch of free stuff with a minimal and decreasing amount of random non-free stuff we still need to support it works well, it seems to me. Yes. Back in the day, I tried writing a version of the SC that felt both inspiring and within the bounds of what we could actually meet. It looked like: ... 4. We will be open about our activities We will conduct our affairs in public and allow anyone to follow our discussions. Where public disclosure is not immediately feasible we will make any private discussions publically available at the earliest opportunity. ... It doesn't try to say how these goals are met, leaving that up to the DPL, ftpmaster, debian-policy, individual maintainers and future resolutions by the project. I think that makes sense by and large, but having the project state that explicitly might be necessary to avoid continuing ambiguity and arguments. ... It drops the 100% free phrasing we've had in the past, because fundamentally what we have isn't 100% free. It might be three-nines edging onto four-nines, but we don't even have an accurate measurement. Calling main as it stands today an integrated system of free software seems the best compromise between staying focussed on freedom, not claiming to be completely free until we are, and not devolving into impenetrable jargon that I could come up with. You mean like many contracts which use best effort clause ... For example, we will use and promote FREE softwares to the extent possible. It redoes the we will not hide problems phrasing in a way that, I think, reflects the intent better than the current wording, which seems to support just about everything but the BTS to be done in secret. Unfortunately that's some way off current practice wrt conducting project activities on restricted machines, private IRC channels, unlogged IRC channels, in personal emails, and on private lists. But the way you wrote in 4 as we will make any private discussions publically available at the earliest opportunity. is problematic since it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along we will make any private discussions publically available at the earliest opportunity to the extent appropriate for this objective. I am using this objective as to allow anyone to follow our discussions. I hope someone can rephrase this better. ... One other thing the above does is, unlike the current SC, is use the word Debian to refer solely to the project -- so it doesn't suffer from the confusion that when the current SC says Debian will remain 100% free you don't have to mentally substitute in The main component of ... releases in order to reconcile it with the later mentions of non-free stuff. Yes, I like this. Since it's worded as a pledge, it might make sense that if it (or something like it) is ever adopted, that existing developers membership being dependent on them agreeing to the pledge. That didn't happen with the previous SC change, but it seems strange to claim to have a social contract when a significant number of members don't actually support it 100%. I am not sure about the last part. If you said when a significant number of members don't actually abide by it 100%., I can agree. As much as we are discussing SC change now, we should allow us to discuss changing it as long as we abide by the current SC during its valid term. I mean people with view to have stricter FREE requirement should not be forced to leave project via this pledge process. To me, none of us made action which does not abide to the valid current SC. We only overruled a part of SC when it conflicted with another one in SC via GR. I.e. 100% free
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG ?violations
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote: I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is even one of them. Count me in as well then, since I completely share his opinion. I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to What about you spend your time hacking on gnewsense then, and let us create on an OS which will also be useful? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG ?violations
In linux.debian.vote Thomas Bushnell BSG t...@becket.net wrote: On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. aolMe too./aol Can you please define host CPU for us? What about the same one which is executing the OS kernel? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I would personally prefer for the project to have the freedom to decide those sorts of things on a day-to-day basis through regular decision making [...] I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is even one of them. Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers work together better, such as by organising the kernel summit. I'm all for having a 100% free system, and then some, but if it comes down to a choice between supporting absolute freeness without exception, and working with folks like Ted, I'm more interested in the latter. In my opinion, developers who are unwilling to abide by the Social Contract in their Debian work should resign. But they don't, and this is what has me afraid. Of course, the other side of that ist that we've never worried about DDs who aren't willing to support non-free, which is also part of the social contract. Anyway, I'm already getting namechecked for discussing this too much [0], so, well, whatever. See y'all again when squeeze gets held up. Peace out, aj [0] http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/serendipity/index.php?/archives/148-When-firmware-is-not-software.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Theodore Tso: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I think it's not that simple anymore. For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: I thought FD was also a vote for release Lenny given it didn't change the status quo and before the GR the release team were quite happy to release... If you believe that the release team had the authority to release lenny with an arbitrary amount of non-free software, then yes, that would seem accurate. If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a more suitable version? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Mike Hommey: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote: * Theodore Tso: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I think it's not that simple anymore. For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). Following the same logic, you should be opposing to packages such as the kernel, that allows to run proprietary ELF blobs. This is ridiculous. If the kernel automatically downloaded some binary from the network and executed it, I would consider that unacceptable for a default configuration, too. It's not the mere possibility that counts. I'm against doing this by default (or requiring it for almost any use of a package). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote: * Theodore Tso: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I think it's not that simple anymore. For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). Following the same logic, you should be opposing to packages such as the kernel, that allows to run proprietary ELF blobs. This is ridiculous. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I would prefer this. But I am afraid of it, and so I would vote against it. I am afraid that there are folks in the project who really don't care if Debian is 100% free--even as a goal. I think that Ted Tso is even one of them. Fear is a terrible thing to use as the basis of decisions and of votes; consider it was fear that drove many people to vote for Proposition 8 in California As I said in my recent blog entry[1], I believe that 100% free is a wonderful aspirational goal --- other things being equal. However, I don't believe it to be something that should be Debian's Object of Ultimate Concern; there are other things that need to be taken into consideration --- for example, allowing various machines owned by Debian to be able to use their network cards might be a nice touch. [1] http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2008/12/28/debian-philosophy-and-people/ In other words, I believe in 100% Free as a goal; but I'm not a fundamentalist nor a fanatic about it. I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others, Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal importance, there are six in the world already. Does Debian really need to be the seventh such distribution? [2] http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistributions In my opinion, developers who are unwilling to abide by the Social Contract in their Debian work should resign. But they don't, and this is what has me afraid. That would be like saying that people who don't agree with Proposition Eight's amendment to the California constitution should leave the state, as opposed to working to change it. I prefer to stay within Debian in the hopes that I can help it change to something which I think is better; at the very release, reverting the 1.1 version of the Social Contract, and perhaps, clarifying it. I will note that Option 1, Reaffirm the Social Contract came in *dead* *last*: Option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 === === === === === === === Option 1 4660727389 117 Option 2281 160 160 171 177 224 Option 325561 125 137 151 204 Option 4253 121 146 160 166 194 Option 5234 105 128 135 136 191 Option 6220 118 134 125 134 180 Option 7226 129 145 153 160 169 It was beaten by options 2 (281 - 46 = 235), 3 (255 - 60 = 195), 4 (253 - 72 = 181), 5 (234 - 73 = 161), 6 (220 - 89 = 131) and 7/FD (226 - 117 = 109). Put another way, _very_ few people are willing to take a fundamentalist interpretation of the Social contract (by AJ's calculation, 9.3%) ahead of delaying Lenny. I don't think encouraging 90% of the Debian Developers to resign would be a particularly constructive suggestion. Fixing the Social Contract so it reflects our common understanding of what's best for the Debian Community, both users and developers, is IMHO a better choice than striving to become the Seventh Fundamentalist Linux Distribution on the FSF's approved list. Best regards, - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Hi, On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian packagers) is expressly defined by the constitution. Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority requirements. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden. I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a temporary compromise is not necessarily a change of our principles. So, yes, that does require interpretation. [...] Any time that this is not the case, you should assume that we're not changing our common goal but that we're discussing the interpretation that we make of it or that we're discussing the compromise that we can currently accept in order to reach our common objective (as defined by the foundation document). No, thats a inherently wrong way to work with a constitution. Somebody earlier in one of the related threads brought a good example. He compared the consitution of Debian with the consititution of a state. The important thing about a constitution is that one has to be careful with it. Its not a law that you change or interpret like you want if you see fit. Actually, a constitution /is/ a law; it's just a special type of law, that other laws have to abide by. Indeed, the proper translation of the word 'constitution' into Dutch is 'grondwet', something akin to 'base law'. As any piece of human language, a constitution is not mathematically clear, and requires interpretation. Most constitutions stipulate things in fairly broad and generic terms, since it is hard to change them; it is then up to parliament to draft laws that specify those broad and generic terms in more detailed language, and those regular laws can (and are) changed all the time. Laws almost always get voted with simple majority; even those laws that define a current interpretation to a constitution. Sometimes, of course, a law is voted that is later found unconstitutional by the body that decides such things. When that happens, all or part of the unconstitutional law is repealed, and either the constitution is changed or the wording of the new law is changed so that it is no longer unconstitutional, and then put up for voting again. If we are going to compare Debian to a country, and Debian's constitutional processes to that of a country, I think it is obvious that the differences are thusly: - In a country, the body that decides whether a law is or is not unconstitutional, can only do so when a citizen explicitly asks it to do so. In the absence of such a question, each and every law is assumed to be constitutional. In Debian, the body that decides on constitutionality also happens to be the body that takes votes, and is able to impose constitutional restrictions in the vote-taking. This body has, in the past, declared that something is unconstitutional without explicitly being asked about it. - In a country, the body that decides on constitutionality is usually a court of law that is built up of more than one judge. In Debian, the body that decides on constitutionality is just one person. I think that we have made the mistake of giving too much power to one person. While I do not think Manoj willingly abused that power, I do think that this has made it harder for him to retain his objectivity; and that he has lost it over the years, though through no fault of his own. The solution therefore seems obvious: The secretary should no longer be the person who interprets the constitution. Instead, interpretation of the constitution should be given to a small body of trusted developers who only decide on interpretation when explicitly asked to do so. This could be the technical committee, or it could be a new body; but I'd say that leaving interpretation up to one man has now clearly been proven to be a bad idea. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: New section for firmware.
Johannes Wiedersich j...@ph.tum.de wrote: [...] The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1]. I like this suggestion. Now the question: Would this section not be better called 'sourceless'? [...] In the context of the current proposal, I would call it something like 'sourceless-uploads' to try to make it clear it is for firmware that is uploaded to some subprocessor and not run by the debian processor. Generally, I think the firmware area is a step forwards in helping more people to visualise the size of the problem/task. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Thiemo Seufer t...@networkno.de wrote: Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...] hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should ^ .. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others. Just need not comply (no to required after need, or allows). comply with the rest of the the DFSG. 3. This new section will be available on our CD, DVD and other images. .. available to all supported installation methods. s/to/for/ Wearing my l10n-english hat, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote: Sometimes we don't include documentation not because it is sourceless (at any rate, what is the source for a .txt file but that file itself?), but because it is simply non-free. Think about the RFCs: They are not legally modifiable. and there is _good_ reason for that (i.e. if you modify/redistribute RFC821, you might trick somebody into believing that GIVEMEROOTSHELL is a valid SMTP command). That is a good reason for having verifiably digitally-signed copies of the RFCs, but it is not a good reason for using copyright to forbid a general freedom to modify the RFC documents. Hope that explains -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much: we've already done a lot of work restricting main to DFSG-free docs, and I think it makes sense to keep that. Having main be a functioning bunch of free stuff with a minimal and decreasing amount of random non-free stuff we still need to support it works well, it seems to me. I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented over doctrinal disputes over licensing terms is actually in the best interests of users, but I recognize that's a position that people of good will can (and have) disagreed upon. If it were up to me, I would have Debian work towards a system where packages could be tagged to allow enable common user preferences (we won't be able to make everyone happy) be enforced by what packages they can see/install. Some users are OK with GFDL documentation, others are not; some users are OK with non-free firmware, other are not. So why can't we tag packages appropriately, so that this can be reflected in a configuration file so that people who are passionate about some particular issue can decide what tradeoffs they are willing to make with respect to usability and/or documentation based on how Fundamentalistic they want to be with regards to the 100% Free goal/requirement? Separating packages into separate sections to support these sorts of policy preferences is a hack, and with appropriate tagging, in the long run we can allow users to be much more fined-grained about expressing their preferences --- which would be in line with our goal of being a Universal OS, I think. Back in the day, I tried writing a version of the SC that felt both inspiring and within the bounds of what we could actually meet. It looked like: I like this a lot. However, I do have a few nits... We, the members of the Debian project, make the following pledge: 1. We will build a free operating system We will create and provide an integrated system of free software that anyone can use. We will make all our work publically available as free software. Given how literalistic some members of our community can be about interpreting Foundation Documents, the second sentence is a little worrying. I can easily imagine a Free Software Fanatic using the second sentance as an argument that we must stop distributing the non-free section, since non-free is, by definition, not Free Software. And it could easily be argued that the work that Debian Developers to package non-free packages, which is after all distributed on the Debian FTP servers and via Debian Mirrors, would fall under the scope of All our work. I'm not sure what you were trying to state by the second sentence above; one approach might be to simply strike it from the draft. Or were you trying to add the constraint that any work authored by DD's on behalf of the Debian Project should be made available under a free software license, even if in combination with other software being packaged, the result is non-free? 2. We will build a superior operating system We will collect and distribute the best software available, and strive to continually improve it by making use of the best tools and techniques available. I'm worried about the first clause, because of the absolutist word best in best software available. Again, some literally minded DD's could view this as meaning that the best is the enemy of the good, and use this as bludgeon to say that since we have package X, we should not have packages Y or Z, because, X is the *best*. Again, I'm not sure what you intended to add by the first clause, so my first reaction would be to strike it and make it shorter/simpler: We will strive to continually improve the software we collect and distribute by making use of the best tools and techniques available. I don't think the community clause is terribly well worded, but that's what you get when you make stuff up out of whole cloth rather than building on previous attempts. It's not bad. The one thing that I noted was community wasn't terribly well defined. Do we mean the user community? The developer community? Upstream developers? All of the above? Adding an initial phrase or sentence that affirmed that everyone who touches Debian in some way (users, developers, upstream) are considered part of the community --- and then follow it with your formulation pledging that we will work to ensure that members of the community shall be treated with respect --- would be the way I would go. Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, unless people want to come up with their own proposals, or want to second the above as a draft proposal to be improved and voted on, I suspect nothing much will change, and we'll have this discussion again in a few years when squeeze is looking like releasing. I would
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote: As others have pointed out, there is such a distribution, gNewSense; in fact, if you look at [2], you will find that there are five others, Ututu (the first fully free GNU/Linux distribution recognized by the FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal importance, there are six in the world already. Does Debian really need to be the seventh such distribution? Except that none of these distros existed when Debian set the 100% free goal. Should it drop this goal now there are others such distros ? I don't think so. Should it make it less important than in the past ? I don't think either. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to the promise only in fits and starts. That's ok with me. But I'm afraid that if we stopped the promise, and simply decided it would be our goal, the folks who are against the promise will be against the goal, and will see this as permission to simply *never* work toward the goal, and to obstruct others who do. I do not believe for a second that there is anyone in the Debian project who would *oppose* working toward a goal of free software. However, I also believe that pragmatism is a necessary requirement for a project as large as Debian. I am not in the camp of those who think that getting Debian to be completely and utterly free software should be our one and only goal, and that all the rest is unimportant; therefore, I did also vote for a pragmatist option during this vote. But I will now solemny pledge that if you can ever convince me (by pointing to BTS logs, or mailinglist threads, or some such) that one of our developers is actively *obstructing* the replacement of non-free software by free software, I will immediately second a vote to expel them from the project. Freedom may not be the primary goal for this project in my personal opinion, it still is a goal that I find extremely important, and those who oppose it have no place in the Project, ever. Personally, I think that aj's proposed text actually makes it much more clear that the social contract is not a statement of fact, but rather is a promise and a goal. I do not think we should forget about the goal; but I do think that if currently there is an idea for a perfect option (which as of yet is vapourware) and an imperfect option that already exists, we should go with imperfection. [...] In my opinion, developers who are unwilling to abide by the Social Contract in their Debian work should resign. But they don't, and this is what has me afraid. I agree with you on that one, and I think you'll find that many developers do. I also think you'll find that it would be easy to get such developers kicked from the project. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
- Wouter Verhelst wrote: Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden. I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a temporary compromise is not necessarily a change of our principles. So, yes, that does require interpretation. Could we please vote on whether the Social Contract is the foundation of the constitution? This notion that the SC is a suggestion is making my brain hurt. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
[s...@powerlinux.fr: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations]
Hi, Sven asked me to forward this message to the list. Since it does not contain any of the vitriol for which he was expelled from the project, and since it does contain some valid points on the discussion in question, I decided to comply with his request. I'd like to say, though, that this does not mean I necessarily agree with his PoV. - Forwarded message from Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr - X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb3 (2006-10-05) on samba.grep.be X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.7-deb3 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:25 +0100 To: Anthony Towns a...@azure.humbug.org.au, lea...@debian.org, da-mana...@debian.org, listmas...@debian.org, s...@powerlinux.fr Cc: debian-vote@lists.debian.org, debian-de...@lists.debian.org, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu Subject: Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations Message-ID: 20081229103925.ga22...@powerlinux.fr In-Reply-To: 20081229050241.gd11...@blae.erisian.com.au User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Sven Luther s...@powerlinux.fr On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 08:45:16PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote: I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled Reaffirm the social contract lower than the choices that chose to release. I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. So what would such a SC look like? We previously had a vote to revert the SC to 1.0, and while it defeated reaffirming the current SC, it lost to the option of simply postponing it. Maybe with nearly four years of experience since then, that's changed though. I think the problem is not really the social contract, what it currently says is just fine, and we all agree with it. We have free stuff, which is in main, and non-free stuff of diverse variety, which is in non-free (plus the hybrid contrib). My own guess is that all those clamoring to have non-free firmware and non-free documentation or images or whatever in main, would be just as satisfied if we decided to support non-free more (and maybe put choice non-free stuff on our CD medias). I believe this will satisfy everyeone, there will be no loss of freeness over what we have now (we distribute this non-free stuff from our ftp/http servers, which is just another distribution media compared to CDs), while it allows for transparent installation of those non-free drivers, and thus those wanting to be able to install on non-free-firmware needing hardware should be happy too. So, what is really needed is that we take the time to make the non-free firmware support upto par to what we promised in our social contract : We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian So, in this case, configured for use with Debian, means that the non-free firmware is well integrated with both d-i and our kernel. So, basically, there is nothing to do here, nothing which will cause a ideological schism, or which makes some of us forget our vows to support the social contract when we joined debian (independent of what you consider software or not). We simply say : - non-free firmware and other stuff, are supported through the non-free area of debian (which we may subclasify or something such, but we need no social-contract change for that). - the stuff in non-free should be well integrated in debian, and we will distribute the non-free stuff on our CD or other installation media, that are needed for installing on modern hardware, provided we are legally able to do so. Then the question that remains is simple : - will we hold lenny until all remaining non-free stuff is moved to non-free, and support for well integrated non-free is added into debian where needed. or - will we release lenny as is, knowing that serious effort has been made to make this separation easier, that non-free firmware has been moved into non-free modules, and d-i support it to a degree, but more work is needed for it ? I guess that if asked such, there will be load of support for the second option, since it is the most reasonable one, and none can deny that there has been progress made on this front since our last release. That will also allow us to put all these
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority requirements. (...) So, yes, that does require interpretation. Actually I said it does not require interpretation of the DFSG to set majority requirements. And I still think this is true for this particular case. No, thats a inherently wrong way to work with a constitution. Somebody earlier in one of the related threads brought a good example. He compared the consitution of Debian with the consititution of a state. The important thing about a constitution is that one has to be careful with it. Its not a law that you change or interpret like you want if you see fit. Actually, a constitution /is/ a law; it's just a special type of law, Right. Might be that my wording was not clear. I just wanted to point out that my understanding of a constitution is, that it needs to be handled with more care then you do with a law. I think that we have made the mistake of giving too much power to one person. While I do not think Manoj willingly abused that power, I do think that this has made it harder for him to retain his objectivity; and that he has lost it over the years, though through no fault of his own. Yep, I agree that it is bad to give too much power to one person and yes I agree that Manjoj did not willingly abuse his power. The solution therefore seems obvious: The secretary should no longer be the person who interprets the constitution. Instead, interpretation of the constitution should be given to a small body of trusted developers who only decide on interpretation when explicitly asked to do so. Right. I agree fully with this and would second a proposal that would push this idea forward (but *after* we released Lenny ofcourse :) Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: For someone that is in Debian for so long its pretty bad how one can misjudge it... That's great. If you don't want them to release glibc as is, why didn't you upload a more suitable version? I'm happy to delay the release indefinitely until all the sourceless firmware is removed from the glibc source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 09:55:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. Debian has promised to be that, while living up to the promise only in fits and starts. That's ok with me. But I'm afraid that if we stopped the promise, and simply decided it would be our goal, the folks who are against the promise will be against the goal, and will see this as permission to simply *never* work toward the goal, and to obstruct others who do. I do not believe for a second that there is anyone in the Debian project who would *oppose* working toward a goal of free software. However, I also believe that pragmatism is a necessary requirement for a project as large as Debian. I agree. But I think the gap in understanding here is that there are different interpretations of obstruct in play. I think that the hardcore idealists (excuse this extreme term, but it's the most descriptive at hand) believe that the Social Contract produces some sort of positive obligation to work as hard as possible to make Debian as free as possible. Under this interpretation of the Social Contract, anything which is not in the name of promoting free software would count as obstruction. In contrast, it seems like the pragmatists (again, I think Romain makes an excellent post--I will only use this terminology because it seems common in the thread) see the Social Contract as promoting a sort of dualism. [0] That is to say, the Social Contract says that we should distribute free software and that we should serve our users. It creates negative obligations not to promote non-free and not to harm our users, but not a particular positive obligation in terms of favoring one or the other. At times when these goals are incommensurate, we must decide between them, instead of always defaulting in favor of one or the other. In other words, you only obstruct free software if you actively work to include it in Debian--and I don't think anyone is advocating this (no one wants to fork the kernel to avoid upstream's decision to split out non-free blobs!) Ted Tso seems to point out the problem with second perspective--the Social Contract seems to, in its present wording, deny us access to this dualism. It has very strong rhetoric in favor of free software, with more pliant rhetoric in favor of our users. I think that it is preferable if the Social Contract were revised to be less absolutist. Debian needs such flexibility, in my opinion. Since I'm not a developer, I don't feel qualified to really speak to such a change. Daniel [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism -- Daniel Moerner dmoer...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de [2008-12-29 15:01:19 CET]: * Theodore Tso: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I think it's not that simple anymore. For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). But it is. The web browser does run on the Host CPU, thus the javascript engine does run on the Host CPU, too. Problem solved. :) Rhonda P.S.: Was there a MF'up2 anywhere? Not sure if this should/has to continue on both lists? P.P.S.: Weren't the Results usually mailed to d-d-a, too? Was this a mistake here, or is my memory flawed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote: FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal importance, there are six in the world already. Does Debian really need to be the seventh such distribution? Except that none of these distros existed when Debian set the 100% free goal. Should it drop this goal now there are others such distros ? I don't think so. Should it make it less important than in the past ? I don't think either. Debian has always had a more relaxed view on these matters than the free software purists would like - things like providing contrib and non-free aren't entirely acceptable to them and are one of the reasons why people go to these other distributions with their stronger political focus. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 23:27 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Whatever his motives, I think Ted's demonstrably done more to further the cause of free software than most developers, both by making Linux more and more usable for over 15 years now, and for helping other developers work together better, such as by organising the kernel summit. I'm all for having a 100% free system, and then some, but if it comes down to a choice between supporting absolute freeness without exception, and working with folks like Ted, I'm more interested in the latter. I'm not against working with Ted. I completely second your remarks above. I simply don't think that people should have a vote in Debian if they are not committed to following Debian's foundation documents in their Debian work. I do not know if Ted is such a person or not, but I do know that he doesn't share the goal expressed in the Social Contract; he's said as much. If he's willing to put that aside in his Debian work, then that's sufficient for me, and AFAICT, that's exactly what he does. My concern is that not everyone is like Ted. They may share his views about the Social Contract, but rather than put them aside and abide by it in their Debian work, they just ignore the bits they don't like. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Wouter Verhelst (wou...@debian.org) [081229 15:36]: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Hi, On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian packagers) is expressly defined by the constitution. Its not neccessary to interpret the DFSG in order to set majority requirements. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the DFSG is law, and that it cannot be overridden. Nowhere in the constitution is it said that the social contract is law, and that it cannot be overridden. I'm not saying we should just thump them out, but a temporary compromise is not necessarily a change of our principles. So, yes, that does require interpretation. I need to say that I agree that ignoring a document should need the same majority as changing it. I don't think that's the major issue with the majority requirements of the GR. (For a deeper look why I agree to that, consider either the recent US history, or the years 1933ff in Germany, and at least for Germany, the constitution rules learned from that.) I think that the major issue with this vote is that Proposals A, B, D and E all are only weighting and interpreting the current SC, but some of them needs 3:1 majority while others don't. Proposals C and F however modify (or put aside) the DFSG, so the 3:1-majority there seems sensible. - In a country, the body that decides whether a law is or is not unconstitutional, can only do so when a citizen explicitly asks it to do so. In the absence of such a question, each and every law is assumed to be constitutional. Actually, in many countries the President (or King) can decide to not sign a law if it seems unconstitutional. That happened with the current President in Germany twice (and that's BTW next to the only political power he has). In Germany the parliament can then decide to go to the constitutional court to get a final ruling on the case. - In a country, the body that decides on constitutionality is usually a court of law that is built up of more than one judge. In Debian, the body that decides on constitutionality is just one person. The problem isn't that the secretary has the first call - but IMHO there should be an instance of appeal like the TC (though this isn't technical, but we have a body there that could be used - as you proposed). In case nobody disagrees too much with the decision by the secretary, we can go on as well. (And perhaps requiring Q developers for an appeal.) Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Gerfried Fuchs: For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). But it is. The web browser does run on the Host CPU, thus the javascript engine does run on the Host CPU, too. Problem solved. :) The counterargument is that for a server application, the Javascript blob isn't intended to run on the host CPU, but on the client. 8-/ (Conversely, firmware shouldn't doesn't non-free material only because you can run it using qemu because it happens to be a supported architecture.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:16:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Mike Hommey: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote: * Theodore Tso: I'm not ashamed at all; I joined before the 1.1 revision to the Debian Social Contract, which I objected to them, and I still object to now. If there was a GR which chainged the Debian Social contract which relaxed the first clause to only include __software__ running on the Host CPU, I would enthusiastically vote for such a measure. I think it's not that simple anymore. For instance, while I have no particular opinion on firmware, I object to packages in main which, when run on a web browser, execute proprietary Javascript blobs (either by shipping them in the package, or by linking them in some way). Following the same logic, you should be opposing to packages such as the kernel, that allows to run proprietary ELF blobs. This is ridiculous. If the kernel automatically downloaded some binary from the network and executed it, I would consider that unacceptable for a default configuration, too. It's not the mere possibility that counts. I'm against doing this by default (or requiring it for almost any use of a package). Forget my message, I was reading Java blobs and thought you were talking about the openjdk plugin. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Hi, I have felt for some time that the low requirement for seconds on General Resolutions is something that should be fixed. We are over 1000 Developers, if you can't find more than 5 people supporting your idea, its most probably not worth it taking time of everyone. Various IRC discussions told me that others feel the same. So here is a possible proposal. Probably needs en_GANNEFF cleanup, and might need other changes too, I try collecting them from replies. As this will change the constitution, if we ever go and vote on it, it will need a 3:1 to win. (see Constitution 4.1.2) Oh, note. While this is written as a GR, this is a discussion proposal only. I'm *not* calling for seconders with this mail. Thats also the reason for the reply-to/mail-followup-to header going to -project, please respect them. General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1021 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9765453086705 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.9296359260114 this will mean that future GRs would need 30 other people to support your idea. While that does seem a lot (6times more than now), considering that a GR affects more than 1000 official Developers and uncounted amounts of other people doing work for Debian, I think its not too much. Especially as point b only requires 15 people, 3 times the amount than now, in case there is a disagreement with the DPL, TC or a Delegate. -- bye, Joerg Please, not the graphviz one again, I only just finished the therapy I had to start after I read it the first time. I'm sure this one was written by some sort of non-human entity. I would go for lawyers. pgp1EZ1bRL2eH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(2Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] Whatever we decide to do should specifically modify the constitution; that is a) §4.2.1 is replaced with The Developers follow the Standard Resolution Procedure, below. A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any Developer and sponsored by at least floor(2Q) other Developers, or if proposed by the Project Leader or the Technical Committee. b) §4.2.2.2 is replaced with If such a resolution is sponsored by at least floor(Q) Developers, or if it is proposed by the Technical Committee, the resolution puts the decision immediately on hold (provided that resolution itself says so). etc. I'd also suggest alternatively, that we change K to be floor(Q), and modify §4.2.1 to be 2K, §4.2.2.2 to be K, and §4.2.2.3 to be left alone, which would have the same effect, but with fewer changes (and we could define floor(Q) instead of assuming it to be known.) Because quorum is 3Q, this would mean that any option will have enough voters to conceivably win in an election. [I would also be ok with K==1.5Q, and requiring at least K developers for each step.] All that said, I'd be interested in seeing such a change made.[1] Don Armstrong 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options would be more careful about the effects that their options may have, and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. -- This message brought to you by weapons of mass destruction related program activities, and the letter G. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options would be more careful about the effects that their options may have, and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable options exist. Absolutely agreed with this sentiment. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to get it voted on? -- \ “The cost of education is trivial compared to the cost of | `\ ignorance.” —Thomas Jefferson | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
[switching to -vote only, since this is about the process of voting] On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote: This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to get it voted on? Because it can potentially lead to a waste of everyone's time. One of the major reasons why we require proposals and seconds is to limit the options proposed to ones that a significant proportion of Developers actually agree with and plan on voting for. That's not to say that you shouldn't offer suggestions for improvements in options that you don't agree with; you just shouldn't propose or second them. [If it's popular enough to be a useful option, the people with whom the option is popular will propose and second; it's not like it's hard to do.] Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Using the word software as the basis for the divide might be too much: I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented over doctrinal disputes over licensing terms is actually in the best interests of users, but I recognize that's a position that people of good will can (and have) disagreed upon. If it were up to me, I would have Debian work towards a system where packages could be tagged to allow enable common user preferences (we won't be able to make everyone happy) be enforced by what packages they can see/install. Sure, I agree, and have supported similar proposals in the past. [0] [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/04/msg00074.html Separating packages into separate sections to support these sorts of policy preferences is a hack, Not entirely. The pool/main (and dists/*/main) separation makes it easy for mirrors to only get DFSG-free stuff (ie, they can just use rsync, rather than needing to parse Debian-specific policy files). Otherwise, though, yes, definitely agree. I like this a lot. However, I do have a few nits... We, the members of the Debian project, make the following pledge: 1. We will build a free operating system We will create and provide an integrated system of free software that anyone can use. We will make all our work publically available as free software. Given how literalistic some members of our community can be about interpreting Foundation Documents, the second sentence is a little worrying. I can easily imagine a Free Software Fanatic using the second sentance as an argument that we must stop distributing the non-free section, since non-free is, by definition, not Free Software. The non-free stuff in non-free isn't our work though -- it's stuff other people have made that we redistribute. our work is things like debbugs, dak, debhelper, *.diff.gz, etc. Maybe some DDs write non-free software that gets packaged, but that can at least be differentiated by Joe Random j...@example.com versus using a d.o address. And it could easily be argued that the work that Debian Developers to package non-free packages, which is after all distributed on the Debian FTP servers and via Debian Mirrors, would fall under the scope of All our work. I think any packaging code, even for non-free stuff, should be DFSG-free. That might require dual-licensing, but that's okay. I'm not sure what you were trying to state by the second sentence above; one approach might be to simply strike it from the draft. Or were you trying to add the constraint that any work authored by DD's on behalf of the Debian Project should be made available under a free software license, even if in combination with other software being packaged, the result is non-free? Pretty much, yeah. 2. We will build a superior operating system We will collect and distribute the best software available, and strive to continually improve it by making use of the best tools and techniques available. I'm worried about the first clause, because of the absolutist word best in best software available. Again, some literally minded DD's could view this as meaning that the best is the enemy of the good, and use this as bludgeon to say that since we have package X, we should not have packages Y or Z, because, X is the *best*. There's nothing there that says we won't also distribute the worst software available, though. If you're worried about the best being exclusionary, though, the same applies to tools/techniques. If bugzilla is the best tool for bug tracking, we must immediately stop using debbugs, eg. Ditto wiki software, list software, etc. I would certainly be willing to second and support such a proposal, should you decide that you are willing to make it as a formal proposal for a GR. So that's one, but at least four more would be needed... Here's a wiki page for people who think this is a reasonable or desirable sort of thing to do: http://wiki.debian.org/SocialContractRevision . I've only added my caveats, not ones that other people have already brought up. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:10:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: But the way you wrote in 4 as we will make any private discussions publically available at the earliest opportunity. is problematic since it is 100% disclosure pledge. I suggest something along we will make any private discussions publically available at the earliest opportunity to the extent appropriate for this objective. I am using this objective as to allow anyone to follow our discussions. I hope someone can rephrase this better. IMO, discussion that leads to technical changes, is really part of the source, much like in-code comments, READMEs, and version control logs. If you've got access to the reasoning that led up to a decision, you can have a much better understanding of what's going on, just as if you have access to criticisms being made, and what people propose to do about them, you've got a much better idea of what the code's capabilities are. There's nothing wrong with having a closed discussion with some friends about how to improve your packages, but it's much better if after the fact you make that discussion available to everyone who might be interested. The same thing applies to discussions about the direction of Debian -- when it might release, how decisions get made, what exciting new things we might consider doing. These are important bits of information that users, upstream, and developers of other distros should have access to. That doesn't mean *every* private discussion DDs have -- gosh, wasn't the football exciting last night? isn't very interesting to Debian, eg. But equally, it's not especially on-topic for most Debian areas, either. If there's a casual environment -- like debconf, or a pub, or an IRC channel; there's no need for complete logs or video records for everyone to be able to pore over, but summaries of the technical bits would be a win. Since it's worded as a pledge, it might make sense that if it (or something like it) is ever adopted, that existing developers membership being dependent on them agreeing to the pledge. That didn't happen with the previous SC change, but it seems strange to claim to have a social contract when a significant number of members don't actually support it 100%. I am not sure about the last part. If you said when a significant number of members don't actually abide by it 100%., I can agree. As much as we are discussing SC change now, we should allow us to discuss changing it as long as we abide by the current SC during its valid term. I mean people with view to have stricter FREE requirement should not be forced to leave project via this pledge process. I don't think the text I wrote puts any limits on how much you can support free stuff; it only puts limits on how much you can ignore other people's opinions and how poorly you can treat other people. If you only want to license your work under the MIT license, and never the GPL because you think that is too restrictive, eg, you can perfectly well make that pledge. To me, none of us made action which does not abide to the valid current SC. We only overruled a part of SC when it conflicted with another one in SC via GR. I.e. 100% free vs. user. I'm not saying the project doesn't support the SC as it stands, just that some DDs don't. That applies to both the remain 100% free claim (it's silly to do that now, because it wouldn't be a functioanl OS or we've never been 100% free up 'til now, how can we `remain' that way?) or the we support [non-free works'] use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (but Debian will remain 100% free, I certainly won't, non-free should be dropped). It makes sense that day-to-day decisions that flow from the social contract might result in disagreements (eg, is the GFDL ever free?, should non-free be released as part of stable, or kept separately?, should packages in non-free ever delay packages in main getting released into testing or stable?), but when the social contract *itself* is the cause of disagreement within the project, I find that troubling. Although I did not agree to the current SC vote, I have been abiding to the current SC. Thus we casted our vote for this GR for lenny. Yeah, you can abide by a document you don't support, but if it's possible to get a document that 95% of the project as it stands actually *supports*, I think it makes sense to consider whether keeping the remaining 5% who have principled disagreements with some part or other is going to be a good way of running the project. My draft was written with the aim of being something that who simply want complete (software) freedom above all else could readily agree with, and sign their name to, as can people who don't much care about the politics or philosophy of free software and just want to keep some non-free packages well maintained. Maybe it doesn't succeed at that, I don't know. Anyway, given the last proposal I made [0] went nowhere, [...] This is Technical
