Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away
for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new
complete draft here shortly thereafter.
So I'm not considering this currently as an amendment.
Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under
Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the
proposal. Do you disagree with that interpretation? If so I can, as the
proposer, turn that change into a formal amendment and directly accept
it (under §A.1.1 and §A.1.2), offering then the opportunity to seconders
to disagree forking the text. I think it's in the best interest of all
of us not to fork two options for *this* specific reason and I think
§A.1.3 applies and it's the best way forward.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably accept this or something simular as amendment replacing the orignal text. So at that time I could put you down as someone that seconds that proposal. You now basicly seem to have created a second proposal. I'm not sure I can create a proposal without actually saying so. So no, not yet. :) Basically, there are now two versions of the text floating around, where only one has been proposed as a GR, and where the original proposer (Stefano) has the option to adopt the changes, and thus turn the second version into his proposal, dropping the first. In case these changes are regarded as more than editorial (which is your call, but I feel they are), the new proposal requires new seconds (well, technically, it doesn't if the DPL proposes the GR), so I'm adding mine, assuming that the changes are adopted. If they aren't, I'm inclined to formally proposing this as an alternate text, but I believe others will beat me to it anyway. This feels like an excellent round of [Name of our Leader]. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916084552.ga2...@richter
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:03:01PM +0100, Matthew Johnson a écrit : OTOH, if we pass a GR that looks like we'll give them upload rights (because it just says they are DDs) and then they aren't given upload rights some people might feel upset that they voted for it. Just because it's not required doesn't mean it might not be a good idea to include it. Stefano's DPL platform is actually quite clear on the subject: We need to generalize the lessons learned from the DM process. We have a lot of potential valuable contributors out there. They just need better documentation about how to join. They simply demand something in exchange, to be proud of, that acknowledges their efforts. I do not have preconceptions on the different ways of achieving this (e.g. ACLs vs linearly increasing privileges), but we need to go in that direction. In doing so, we should also relax our implicit assumptions that only technical abilities matter in Debian. The best operating system is mainly, not only, made of software; it is also made of translations, graphics, musics, etc. I will push for more gradual and rewarding access paths to Debian. So if we vote for a GR that do not give a direction, it will be unsurprising that DAM and FD will implement a ‘gradual’ access to our facilities. But the important thing is that it will not be asked by the GR. After seeing the results of this choice, it will always be possible to change the procedure, especially if a later DPL is elected with a platform that goes more towards an equal access for all DDs. [Of course, I noticed that the GR is actually carefully worded to not decide anything, but only to invite. Still, I think that if it contains an invitation to not give upload access to DDs who do not maintain packages, it will be difficult ignore it.] I would love to vote for an amendement that invites DAM and FD to give a normal upload access to all DDs, but they are free to decline the invitation (and it is a good thing). I think that we need to compromise and move on, and I propose to do so by avoiding a wording that would make it difficult to change our choice on this subject later. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916135151.ga23...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:51:51PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Stefano's DPL platform is actually quite clear on the subject:
snip
After seeing the results of this choice, it will always be possible to
change the procedure, especially if a later DPL is elected with a
platform that goes more towards an equal access for all DDs.
I know you're very keen of this argument, but it has always been
unconvincing to me. It is not because DPL get elected on specific
platforms that they can assume the majority of people share *all* of
their content. It is generally *likely* that voters share most of the
content of the winner's platform, but there can still be controversial
points that are not appreciated by the majority of voters.
In fact, you can even imagine an election with only bad candidates, in
which voters vote following the discipline of I choose the candidate I
dislike the least more than that of I choose the candidate I like the
most. In such an hypothetical election, the content of the platform is
pretty much useless to understand what the project wants.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft amendment: Welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian Developers with upload access
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:17:40 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Before pushing it forward as an amendment, I'd like to hear opinions about this: we have had problems with GRs proposing orthogonal options in the past. This amendment proposal discusses two things that are orthogonal (giving full upload access to non-packaging contributors, and limiting every DDs' access on a volunteer basis). Should the second part of the amendment (after Additionally, ..) be dropped for now? Or should we move forward as is? I'd prefer two have the two issues separated and not in one GR. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `-NP: Beatles signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:08:50PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new complete draft here shortly thereafter. So I'm not considering this currently as an amendment. Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the proposal. That would be A.1.6? Do you disagree with that interpretation? If so I can, as the proposer, turn that change into a formal amendment and directly accept it (under §A.1.1 and §A.1.2), offering then the opportunity to seconders to disagree forking the text. I think it's in the best interest of all of us not to fork two options for *this* specific reason and I think §A.1.3 applies and it's the best way forward. My question was basicly if you wanted to make that change at that time. My interpretation is that you didn't propose to change it at that time, but that you would do it at some later time. The question was which part of the constituion this would follow. I also want to avoid having to fork it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916164218.ga21...@roeckx.be
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:45:52AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably accept this or something simular as amendment replacing the orignal text. So at that time I could put you down as someone that seconds that proposal. You now basicly seem to have created a second proposal. I'm not sure I can create a proposal without actually saying so. So no, not yet. :) Basically, there are now two versions of the text floating around, where only one has been proposed as a GR, and where the original proposer (Stefano) has the option to adopt the changes, and thus turn the second version into his proposal, dropping the first. In case these changes are regarded as more than editorial (which is your call, but I feel they are), the new proposal requires new seconds I'm not sure why you think the proposal requires seconds if it replaces an older proposal. As long as nobody objects it doesn't need seconds. Atleast that's my current interpretation, feel free to try and convince me otherwise. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916165202.ga21...@roeckx.be
Re: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members
* Charles Plessy: I wonder why not simply inviting the Debian Account Managers to accept the long term contributors as DDs, even if they to not maintain packages? Would an amendement be welcome? Seems reasonable. (I'm among those who believe that voting rights are more fundamental than upload rights.) We could also suggest (outside the GR) that DAM provides something which enables DDs to permanently break a key for uploads, without invalidating it for other purposes. That might be useful for some DDs and would-be DCs. We may also need a more flexible NM process to accommodate those who do non-packaging work. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874odpcyjm@mid.deneb.enyo.de
Re: Draft amendment: Welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian Developers with upload access
On 15/09/10 at 16:49 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: Re: Lucas Nussbaum 2010-09-15 20100915141740.ga21...@xanadu.blop.info * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. Additionally, the Debian project acknowledges that the current practice of providing all Debian Developers with access to project machines, and unlimited upload permissions to the Debian archive, does not follow the principle of least privilege, and unnecessarily exposes the Debian infrastructure and the Debian archive. Therefore, the Debian project invites the relevant teams to investigate technical methods that would permit DDs to restrict their access to Debian infrastructure, and their upload access to the Debian archive, when their work does not require it. Those technical methods should only be aimed at reducing Debian's attack surface, not at limiting DDs' access and upload permissions, and DDs should be able to regain unlimited access when their work require it without going through a review of their skills. This looks overly detailed and too technical. This kind of security hardening should be done independently from the non-packaging contributors idea, if the involved parties (DSA, etc.) feel it is necessaary. Please don't include it in a GR, but propose a text that just says non-packaging DDs are just like normal DDs. After thinking about it some more, I decided that I didn't care that much to propose an amendment on the non-packaging DDs are just like normal DDs part myself. If someone else wanted to propose one, I would probably second it, and rank it higher than the modified original proposal, though. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916193241.ga24...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: What exactly is this GR supposed to do?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org wrote: My main problem with this text is that while it may fit to the current realities, it makes no sense from a formalistic point of view, as large parts of the text seem to imply there was no way for non-packagers yet and there were no procedures for that. Answering the subject question will probably clear the whole thing. This GR is supposed to show if there is or is not project wide consensus regarding giving non-packagers voting righ...@debian.org addresses, without giving them upload rights. This is something that is currently possible, and the GR doesn't actually establish any processes. It only encourages DAM to do it. This is all due to the fact that DAM had already tried something along these lines and was stopped, due mainly to a problem in communication. So, this is a start over, saying that the project acknowleges and supports DAMs in implementing this. In other words, the GR is not actually needed, it's just a show of support. And I wholeheartedly support it. -- Besos, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinymapdd8ekuc5ubj7q2n88ea09dt=owug7u...@mail.gmail.com
