Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:19:09PM -0400]: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. I second Sam's request, as this is a yes/no vote, and delaying it for a full GR term will postpone the outcome too much. Debian's processes are not optimized for speed, lets imporve a bit :-] signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Em 24/03/2021 18:53, Jonathan Carter escreveu: I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also respect the outcome of the GR and follow it if it completes within my term. -Jonathan i didn't understand why people can't sign the letter individually. I wouldn't like to see my name associate with an action like this. cheers -- Daniel Lenharo Curitiba - BR OpenPGP_0xFB0E132DDB0AA5B1.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Quoting M dB (2021-03-24 23:55:23) > A few thoughts: > > - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much > anymore and is too loaded. Means too little and too much at the same time?!? https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ describes it as a form of boycott, calling out, and group shaming. Wikipedia seems to share that view - what am I missing? Am I in some bubble confirming my views, and other bubbles tell radically different storis about the meaning of the term? > Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? > Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. Are we disccussing public boycott and shaming? Yes. Do public boycott and shaming ruin lives? Hopefully not, but I wonder how you can so confidently dismiss both the term as being meaningless and the action as being harmless. Shame on you for not taking responsibility for your action. I get a strong impression that this RMS felow is far from a saint, and encourage that he be properly tried for his alleged wrongdoings. Public boycott and shaming is something else than a that, however. Something that _does_ means much, and has a bitter taste in my mouth. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
A few thoughts: - I don't like the term "cancel" because I think it doesn't mean much anymore and is too loaded. Are we discussing a handful of people leaving volunteer positions? Yes. Are we discussing ruining their lives? No. - I think some of us have been very close to the FSF and issues within the FSF for a long time and have strong opinions based on our personal and professional experiences working with the Board and the organization. I certainly can't condense 11 years of working with the FSF (as an intern, volunteer, and staff) into a single email. Some people have been associated with the FSF even longer (take John Sullivan, for instance). - Obviously, I am one of the original signers of the letter. I like to think it speaks for itself. The things it calls for are not sudden responses to something that happened, but the result of years of thinking, conversations, studying non-profits, and being involved in social movements and activist work. - Georgia Young, former FSF Programs Manager, said something very important: Nobody who wants rms off the FSF board is trying to destroy his life, & many of us like things about him, but in a position of power and influence, he has shown a disinterest in growth & change, & its causing more harm than good. - To be explicit to anyone reading this, this is exclusively about the Board of the FSF (and to some extent the Voting Membership -- if you're reading this you're probably not a voting member). This is not about the staff. This is not about the mission of the FSF. This is not a condemnation of free software. Cheers, mdb On 3/24/21 6:30 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 3/24/21 10:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged >> discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting >> quickly in this instance. > By writing you wish Debian was "acting quickly", you're expressing your > opinion about the issue. This doesn't match the title of your message. > > FWIW, I'm in the opinion Debian shouldn't do anything, and that all of > this is just distractions. We have Bullseye to release... > >> I suspect most people already have their minds made up. > Looks like you do! :) > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) >
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Isn't it funny how in threads discussing social justice there are always the same opinions coming from the same names, time and time again? One or two more of the usual names and arguments and I fill my bingo card! From: Adam Borowski I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the early days. Even if you feel this way as a private person, it would be improper to push for the Debian Project to turn against our pioneer this way. And, if you want to exclude the greatest hero we had, your calls for "inclusivity" are a bold-faced lie. From: Gerardo Ballabio I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad word and your life might be ruined. Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing list!). I believe it is very much to the point: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. 624 (1943)" What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give my life to defend your right to say it"? -- Martina Ferrari (Tina)
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:13:19AM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2021/03/24 23:19, Sam Hartman wrote: > > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > > point. > > It's been an ongoing issue. > > > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > > quickly in this instance. > > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > > period. > > > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > > than a week's discussion. > > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > > rather than more time on this issue. > > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. > > If Steve, as proposer of the GR is comfortable with shortening the > discussion period to one week, then I will use the DPL powers as per > section 4.2.4 of our constitution to enact that. I am more than happy with this. I see no reason for a prolonged discussion. Ratifying someone else's statement is by its nature an up or down vote. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 3/24/21 10:20 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. By writing you wish Debian was "acting quickly", you're expressing your opinion about the issue. This doesn't match the title of your message. FWIW, I'm in the opinion Debian shouldn't do anything, and that all of this is just distractions. We have Bullseye to release... > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. Looks like you do! :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 2021/03/24 23:19, Sam Hartman wrote: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. If Steve, as proposer of the GR is comfortable with shortening the discussion period to one week, then I will use the DPL powers as per section 4.2.4 of our constitution to enact that. -Jonathan
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 3/24/21 10:00 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. >From the text: "It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need." While probably the readmission of RMS was probably a step in the wrong direction, asking for RMS to "step back" from any tech communities and free software in general is disgusting. And by getting this as a GR, it feels like promoting the cancel culture in Debian. :/ Can't you just express your opinion by yourself, by signing the letter? Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Sorry, for some reason I didn't get Gunnar's original mail so going to reply here... On 2021/03/24 02:24, M dB wrote: >> https://opensource.org/OSI_Response >> https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ >> >> Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of >> days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would >> it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we >> have to pass a GR? Well, a GR has been presented and seconded, so let's see how that unfolds! >> I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced >> without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the >> moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL >> today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the >> project? I'm comfortable making a statement on behalf of the project if necessary. On this particular issue, I feel it's better that individual developers go and make their voices heard. That said, I will also respect the outcome of the GR and follow it if it completes within my term. -Jonathan
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
Confirmed. On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 5:33 PM Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote : > > > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the > body > > > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > > > > > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just > individual > > > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > > > > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting > the > > > text from that open letter via GR. > > > > > > Text of GR > > > > > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > > > readmission to the FSF seen at > > > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > > > > The text of this statement is given below. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > End Text of GR > > > Seconded. > > > (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent > > correction) > > I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on > accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of > this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR > ballot. > > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ > slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org >
Re: diversity
On 3/23/21 10:20 AM, Bart Martens wrote: > Hello DPL candidates, > > A question about diversity. We all know that some profiles are > underrepresented: gender, etnic group, disability, age, sexual preference, > education degree, rich/poor, spoken & written languages... > > 1/ One way of addressing this, is actively BENEFIT the underrepresented > profiles. Positive discriminiation is needed, at least to get over an initial > resistance. Put diversity in the spotlights, to speed up improvement. > > 2/ Another way is active NEUTRALITY treating everyone alike. No > discrimination, > positive nor negative. Make room for diversity to evolve. Diversity > matters, although in the shadow of free software. > > 3/ ... ? > > Now the QUESTION ---> What is your view on this? Your preferred approach? What > is the priority of diversity? Practical action points, how to measure > progress? > > Best regards, > > Bart If we are to compare, it is my view that we did a lot (too much?) for gender diversity, and really not enough for etnic group diversity. Just go and see how many DD per million there is in China, India, and Africa, and you will have to agree. Alf of the planet isn't represented. If we'll have "a delegated team focusing on diversity" that focuses on gender and sexual preference, then I'd be against it. Debian is about promoting free software, not about promoting (any) sexual preference (and don't get me wrong: I have nothing against any group...). Debian is just IMO *not* the place to do that at this level, and I believe we're welcoming enough for every of these related group of people. The message has been sent, and the message is clear enough (hell, we even voted for a statement about diversity...). I can't believe there's people of such groups feeling oppressed in Debian after all that has been done. Welcoming everyone is hopefully the norm in Debian already. If that team focuses on countries of origin, with in mind just promotion of Debian and teaching how to contribute, I'd feel much better about such team, especially because there's so many ways we can act for it, for example getting in touch with local universities. A famous Redmond company does it, why not Debian? Though does this need to be an *appointed* team, and does this need the DPL help? I'm not sure... In general, I don't think diversity should be the main DPL's focus, as I don't think the DPL has magic powers to make it happen more than any motivated DD would. In this regard, I feel Sruthi's platform kind of "light", because it's also not addressing what a DPL role is: - appointing teams - representing Debian (interviews, medias, etc...) - managing funds - resolving conflicts Sruthi, any comment? Please let me know where I'm wrong, as it feels like you probably do not agree with me. Cheers, Thomas Goirand
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Sam Hartman, 2021-03-24 17:19 -0400: > I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step > down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this > point. > It's been an ongoing issue. > > I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged > discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting > quickly in this instance. > So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion > period. > > It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more > than a week's discussion. > But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less > rather than more time on this issue. > I suspect most people already have their minds made up. I second the request. Taowa -- Taowa (they) LOC FN35EM signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 16082 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR ballot. Confirmed. -- bye, Joerg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual Debian developers, should consider signing on to. This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the text from that open letter via GR. Text of GR The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF seen at https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. The text of this statement is given below. Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions. We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes possible, there must be radical change within the community. We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – people. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he does not speak for us. We do not condone his actions and opinions. We do not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software Foundation as it stands today. There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project. We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. We have detailed several public incidents of RMS's behavior. Some of us have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and others. End Text of GR Seconded -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEtg21mU05vsTRqVzPfmUo2nUvG+EFAmBbsQcACgkQfmUo2nUv G+H5Dw//VX+0UbQJj/d2FJvZWG3qK6Z0ea0p/7EDgN/TH4OZuKjLp1BDYv9IOt6f 6tY8D92yKhJovCPgOerumlOAcX8MhcePgNab4DbJkuupIaXMsFis8GGZvdDwI/MV gQ/KhEav/rGRNsYcrQQ1eUVp7e3IVrhPY8QcJc88msemkA5lBNx0VaMgHXq+Hbap siaOMc6wQ5LCMyJ7QXM58kXcaNUc3DZH32yUJhRyHtR8rgKaz2t8MXN640L9eamN UjlPxpFsLGpq71/U3GHRzAWWOVIdg2MS5bBqqtsEn2Uzz6z9CQkjc+NCrb2fyYyg gRmw/LfAaKKS8i0WNM+A1d1V6U8tWUbeoq5tZQf2RkeeL3yl9lgl97el/WM0GSc8 uKIBWDlr8pAyPvqabEpssIzfRkJ3W2kc4jSzWHnbgnhCFyihPQ0ffoQlso9vSv5X Ze5DcW7sgRd6FZpZ1D5V6FVmzp4At/adfYLagTLo8bfQNnChCg1/k/7sQz23xRfk TYEol4sMUPgzQkXH7z7qUpCax9R0puLnKtuBEpT98VbjBjXbdGpp5YhAyZT7GbGk G8FQJ490kTWeG4to6RrBD7x/8e3XEiXZzQLJuKNbPtLmQtHKzWIKgZsqLI4H5F/1 HSfziXsInQRjqLJ6eJcxdupMfLM3NUJPeXESFUvhpqVmCmRpHCM= =8vht -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 24/03/2021 21:33, Steve Langasek wrote: > I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on > accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of > this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR > ballot. amendment also seconded. Colin -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 830814 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id G8TMV | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0xFA0C410738C9D903 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 2021-03-24 17 h 33, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote : >>> Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body >>> who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. >>> >>> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md >>> is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual >>> Debian developers, should consider signing on to. >>> >>> This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the >>> text from that open letter via GR. >>> >>> Text of GR >>> >>> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's >>> readmission to the FSF seen at >>> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. >>> >>> The text of this statement is given below. >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> End Text of GR > >> Seconded. > >> (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent >> correction) > > I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on > accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of > this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR > ballot. > Seconded. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 02:33:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > >> Seconded. > >> (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent >> correction) > >I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on >accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of >this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR >ballot. Seconded on that change -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Das Mohapatra signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:16:44PM +0100, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote : > > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > > text from that open letter via GR. > > > > Text of GR > > > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > > readmission to the FSF seen at > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > > > > The text of this statement is given below. > > > > [...] > > > > End Text of GR > Seconded. > (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent > correction) I accept an amendment to include the word "board" (which was missed on accident by me) and would ask the seconders to confirm their acceptance of this amendment so we can avoid any unnecessary extra variations on the GR ballot. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
On 16082 March 1977, Sam Hartman wrote: I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting quickly in this instance. So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion period. And for whatever it counts: Seconded. No need to have a longish thread about it, its either a yes or no for support of a given text. -- bye, Joerg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. I second this GR. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEt+z0Ld/ZiscwHAYrEQGtWoE2mtcFAmBbq2UACgkQEQGtWoE2 mtevYA//S2WaQ2IJ0Y8gsASllLX5RypfhRjFgL/saIacsfghCAB1lmeJOBbHf0rA OYxrggi+j6E0bvMLFOog/HnsxlNnUg5qj1cQrIdfBl2LEGvMP0XstLm+znoDebyl NrpG8MX1TCLwOPijHtIsVXYsQXBkGPQ/pRjaY8FK/TSEzq6zgy00n/eYzw87rjxU 5iU78PD1BGgLiEAqANicTFyWZOisHEH3WPugUJ9Kuwl7xka8ACtASfoAI4Z0NUQo wMiFTZiUintMv5aWxhTEHH6N7kHH6u2xVEr/CqBRqtsjn4S2BPgy97LKjkeW3xQd smogNMoRMh8XFoLvHwvQqd8fGRkj2H6o25hoONdTKa+6caYP86wMb3S3IVNpLsB2 Cbl9xBb9+yBCnDTGqYNSCKkXY94Tcm2Ge4eRWT9eGpDpGSEtfQkZbRuOPGIY/hsP dtolmwkpDOnnh6naAmUXKc5f1M4TCDVSSU4acEMRvQplm6xUHIj9tz/IjMRW/4Ml qG2VIleF1JMmE7yhQCjRJ3jhBBn6OUBWYqltb+u7FznkyZ3C9DR7koCdZWove1Nd 5CK4Qhq1sJg0U1ppawkhUQZP6KPLlzBEiOPkv7pMUcKX5Y+M51keVG9OfEyc3myG xuInlLEQcfjQ6hjUbslo6Wrdr/4kXhCJWvjKIwKljaDAnI8AlXw= =lgw+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 24/03/2021 20:54, Steve Langasek wrote: > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. Seconded. -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1223 830814 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id G8TMV | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0xFA0C410738C9D903 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote : > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. > > Text of GR > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > readmission to the FSF seen at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > > The text of this statement is given below. > > [...] > > End Text of GR Seconded. (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent correction) Thank you, Nicolas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
I suspect that the issues surrounding the open letter asking rms to step down and for the FSF board to resign are fairly well understood at this point. It's been an ongoing issue. I don't think we're going to get much benefit out of a prolonged discussion, and I think that there is significant benefit in acting quickly in this instance. So, I'd like to ask the DPL to consider shortening the discussion period. It's possible that circumstances may arise requiring more than a week's discussion. But unless that happens I think we would all be happier spending less rather than more time on this issue. I suspect most people already have their minds made up. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: diversity
On 23/03/21 2:41 pm, Bart Martens wrote: > Hello DPL candidates, > > A question about diversity. We all know that some profiles are > underrepresented: gender, etnic group, disability, age, sexual preference, > education degree, rich/poor, spoken & written languages... > > 1/ One way of addressing this, is actively BENEFIT the underrepresented > profiles. Positive discriminiation is needed, at least to get over an initial > resistance. Put diversity in the spotlights, to speed up improvement. I define positive discrimination as giving special attention to people from under-represented groups while not turning down people from other groups. So I am in support for positive discrimination. Putting diversity in the spotlight is a necessary step. We should have special initiatives and activities focusing on having the under-represented groups contribute to Debian. Debian-women project is a good example for this approach and we seem to have got quite significant result till it became dormant. I have mentioned some of the actions I plan to do in this regard in my platform. I plan to have a delegated team focusing on diversity and also to have a streamlined diversity budget allocation and utilization. I also plan to have some outreach activities specifically in collaboration with diversity and local teams to ensure more exposure for under-represented groups. Also may be a diversity MiniDC similar to MiniDC women we had sometime ago? > > 2/ Another way is active NEUTRALITY treating everyone alike. No > discrimination, > positive nor negative. Make room for diversity to evolve. Diversity > matters, although in the shadow of free software. I feel this was Debian's approach till now. The result of this approach is usually very slow. I feel we should experiment a change of approach. > 3/ ... ? 3/ Highlighting the existing diversity within the project. This will showcase the inclusivity of the project. This approach will encourage more diverse people to contribute. In my opinion more diverse people should come forward in mainstream/spotlight into leadership/other notable positions. With my DPL candidature, I want to bring to the table my ethnicity and gender. > > Now the QUESTION ---> What is your view on this? Your preferred approach? What > is the priority of diversity? Practical action points, how to measure > progress? For me diversity has quite high priority (if not the highest), I would dedicate my term as DPL for diversity. A structured analysis to measure the progress is also part of my plan for diversity. > Best regards, > > Bart > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: Steve> Text of GR Steve> The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Steve> Stallman's readmission to the FSF seen at Steve> https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. Steve> The text of this statement is given below. Seconded. My second also applies is the word board is inserted after FSF above. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body >who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > >https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md >is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual >Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > >This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the >text from that open letter via GR. Seconded. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com The two hard things in computing: * naming things * cache invalidation * off-by-one errors -- Stig Sandbeck Mathisen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
Please, as a previous vote runner, can we only have 5 seconders rather than the (currently) 82 DDs who have signed it so far? On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Text of GR > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > readmission to the FSF seen at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > > The text of this statement is given below. > > Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in > the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be > misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of > impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, > digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire > Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership > positions. > > We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the > powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. > In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes > possible, there must be radical change within the community. We believe in > a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – > people. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is > built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While > these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he > does not speak for us. We do not condone his actions and opinions. We do > not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software > Foundation as it stands today. > > There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We > cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our > communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will > not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or > otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. > > We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software > Foundation. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. > They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It > is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital > rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. > We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all > leadership positions, including the GNU Project. > > We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software > Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. > Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his > brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to > take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing > these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. > > We have detailed several public incidents of RMS's behavior. Some of us > have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that > are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what > has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and > others. > > End Text of GR I second this GR. Neil -- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On 16082 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote: Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual Debian developers, should consider signing on to. This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the text from that open letter via GR. Seconded. Text of GR The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF seen at https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. The text of this statement is given below. Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions. We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes possible, there must be radical change within the community. We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – people. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he does not speak for us. We do not condone his actions and opinions. We do not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software Foundation as it stands today. There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project. We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. We have detailed several public incidents of RMS's behavior. Some of us have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and others. End Text of GR -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- bye, Joerg signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2021-03-24 16 h 54, Steve Langasek wrote: > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. > > Text of GR > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > readmission to the FSF seen at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > The text of this statement is given below. > > Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in > the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be > misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of > impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, > digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the > Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire > Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership > positions. > > We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the > powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. > In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes > possible, there must be radical change within the community. We believe in > a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – > people. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is > built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While > these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he > does not speak for us. We do not condone his actions and opinions. We do > not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software > Foundation as it stands today. > > There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We > cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our > communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will > not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or > otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. > > We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software > Foundation. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. > They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It > is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital > rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. > We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all > leadership positions, including the GNU Project. > > We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software > Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. > Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his > brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to > take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing > these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. > > We have detailed several public incidents of RMS's behavior. Some of us > have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that > are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what > has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and > others. > > End Text of GR > I am happy to sponsor this proposition. - -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEZ39U8fqGga2OwLzmeurE7GqqCpcFAmBbqXUACgkQeurE7Gqq Cpdvcg//a5QkGsj0zGqiw6Ek8ow5eE+/StkinTxJnRBJMpmao7rRc406G/M0jPM0 y/8lJ8eGMQVNCraalNw/frMsE/VvrT+NQ0n9tYVxJG7/yZv4fcbht/mjZ+de9i5P 0HdUMs0RJIOfVrdZIVYUNQgBJM1YsTiGn5mBElAFLiIra4Tj2iSOzOw1wg8dTYUa is9qPxrGzpxo+gU7jNw4AkaNBQc2FRqBHx6wzVFzu/4ZLTJfyV3ZBeVNkcS/Kn6B ZhbFcJiqacL6/r9HMR391A3gsbHNcpo4FeahUkUVvIkn5UxI1jJCPomxgYUCA5It SEC1QozCc5ZnM21hN5GrYC5qQJydPgBbOvGgs8Ew/qDxly9FYtykMs0vNCT6+Fvt IdD2LNGV9svSoulo1NTY5HQazp5s9sDBFpMsyMLuJ8/7MjTNGvxdPqXdBG+djKCI MB0y7bS5WtHyuiugRlpJSdvMKX4afYjXn5/zCgiEcHq/U4hzy0yETdwygEDxwlfR 67bsNpJTWJMfUyU4y6KR2BjxATxAqoWQssHSdPrb6BDV1dgu5wvMzuxQUzpTt/6E ubJJdzaKNkF00pD7suv14yda38Tvf5XF/KM61QPxUjedYHJIG+hPHv1Nk2bDSFqv MCJa1HC31NQLiYhUk13SCrI8uiSSygIYUIIjS30sVX0w1noaYdGIdQQBFgoAHRYh BMqnQAcHqBawIC/DzfQlelCyHPqFBQJgW6l7AAoJEPQlelCyHPqF6QcA/3vZdLX7 ziwgcB7SWStpo5n94L7lrV3a5WgDijwpQ4L2AP9pHuYeZlPuVgaQhP3aAujVpfhG qT1mcTRoab1SNW+dAw== =ZAJX -END PGP SIGNATURE-
General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual Debian developers, should consider signing on to. This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the text from that open letter via GR. Text of GR The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF seen at https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. The text of this statement is given below. Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions. We, the undersigned, believe in the necessity of digital autonomy and the powerful role user freedom plays in protecting our fundamental human rights. In order to realize the promise of everything software freedom makes possible, there must be radical change within the community. We believe in a present and a future where all technology empowers – not oppresses – people. We know that this is only possible in a world where technology is built to pay respect to our rights at its most foundational levels. While these ideas have been popularized in some form by Richard M. Stallman, he does not speak for us. We do not condone his actions and opinions. We do not acknowledge his leadership or the leadership of the Free Software Foundation as it stands today. There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s repugnant ideas and behavior. We cannot continue to let one person ruin the meaning of our work. Our communities have no space for people like Richard M. Stallman, and we will not continue suffering his behavior, giving him a leadership role, or otherwise holding him and his hurtful and dangerous ideology as acceptable. We are calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation. These are people who have enabled and empowered RMS for years. They demonstrate this again by permitting him to rejoin the FSF Board. It is time for RMS to step back from the free software, tech ethics, digital rights, and tech communities, for he cannot provide the leadership we need. We are also calling for Richard M. Stallman to be removed from all leadership positions, including the GNU Project. We urge those in a position to do so to stop supporting the Free Software Foundation. Refuse to contribute to projects related to the FSF and RMS. Do not speak at or attend FSF events, or events that welcome RMS and his brand of intolerance. We ask for contributors to free software projects to take a stand against bigotry and hate within their projects. While doing these things, tell these communities and the FSF why. We have detailed several public incidents of RMS's behavior. Some of us have our own stories about RMS and our interactions with him, things that are not captured in email threads or on video. We hope you will read what has been shared and consider the harm that he has done to our community and others. End Text of GR -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, > or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. > > Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite > argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate > without being called on it. well said, I agree with every word. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is "Nazi". Nobody cares about their motives anymore. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: diversity
Hi Bart On 2021/03/23 11:11, Bart Martens wrote: > A question about diversity. We all know that some profiles are > underrepresented: gender, etnic group, disability, age, sexual preference, > education degree, rich/poor, spoken & written languages... > > 1/ One way of addressing this, is actively BENEFIT the underrepresented > profiles. Positive discriminiation is needed, at least to get over an initial > resistance. Put diversity in the spotlights, to speed up improvement. I'm not a fan of that approach, that means implementing something like affirmative action and implementing quotas of some kind and only accepting members of the types we're shot on quota on. I believe that with the right kind of promotion we can boost our numbers without any form of positive discrimination. Also, I'd be really sad to reject anyone's contributions for something they have absolutely no control over. I'm really looking forward to when we can have in-real-life events again, I think that's a crucial part of the puzzle to bring in a more diverse mix of people in to Debian. > 2/ Another way is active NEUTRALITY treating everyone alike. No > discrimination, > positive nor negative. Make room for diversity to evolve. Diversity > matters, although in the shadow of free software. That sounds close to what we have now, although we do have some outreach and diversity funding that helps a little to give more women and other minorities in Debian more exposure to the project. I think that this is an area where we can invest in more. > 3/ ... ? > > Now the QUESTION ---> What is your view on this? Your preferred approach? What > is the priority of diversity? Practical action points, how to measure > progress? There are probably 100s of ways in which we could be more diverse, but I think in terms of new members we should try to attract, we should put some focus towards women and non-white people. In my very first platform I mentioned that I wanted to initiate some kind of initiative where any women anywhere could organise a Debian meetup in their area and have some funding available for it (it could be as simple as a coffee once per week in a nice coffee shop). I didn't persue that for my last term because covid seemed to be quite a blocker. For bringing in more diverse people from all over the world, I think further investment into local teams is the way to go. We talked about this at DC20 and there were some follow-up meetings, I'm trying to encourage the local groups effort to prepare for when covid is over and start organising for that (things like making swag that we can distribute, posters, etc), but it seems like because it's such a delayed gratification, the motivation for that is currently low. MiniDebConfs are also great and last year was going to be a record year for that, I also believe that we should try to preserve that momentum as everything open up again. So in short, the two most solid ideas that I have in mind is to put together some framework/policy to encourage minorities in Debian to meet up (especially women), and also to keep pushing for more local team activities and events that could attract more locals from around the world. Did you perhaps have any ideas in mind too? -Jonathan
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >... > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: > >Matthias Klumpp wrote: > >> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > >> equally valid. > > > >Equally valid -- no. > >Legitimate to express -- yes. > > > >I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to > >Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions > >be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and > >even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make > >them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- > >often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being > >prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable > >because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's > >happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad > >word and your life might be ruined. > > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. Discrimination based on opinion is a human rights violation equal to discrimination based on skin colour or gender. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Universal Declaration of Human Rights I do consider it deeply disturbing that many Open Source Code of Conducts are basically a rewording of this part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - but without protection against discrimination based on opinion. > If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely > reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what > you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any > more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, >... Your position reminds me of times in my home country when train drivers and postmen were fired by the democratic government just for being a member of a communist party. And of some other events a few decades earlier. cu Adrian Yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view. Bernie Sanders
Re: How can we make Debian packaging more standardised?
On 24.03.21 15:37, Simon Richter wrote: > The vast majority of the software we ship works fine with a two-line > systemd unit and three debhelper control files, and that is exactly what we > should be using for these cases, but we cannot generalize that to a > requirement, and people wishing to contribute to packages not served well > by the abstraction will continue to need to look under the hood. Not to diminish your detailed assessment (which I agree with), but just to clarify: with "standardize", I was thinking more of a de-facto standard as you describe it in the first sentence, and not a hard requirement. I just vividly remember how difficult it used to be to contribute to some of the other packages even as a DD, and appreciate how much easier it has become. And for packages that make use of Salsa's rich features (like merge requests, pipelines, etc), I think the experience is even better. Although I admit that this is highly subjective. Best, Christian PS: I mentioned debhelper a few times, when I actually mean "dh". Recognizing the fact that most software more or less follows one or the other build procedure, auto-guessing it, and then enabling the escape hatches that you mentioned was a brilliant idea.
Re: How can we make Debian packaging more standardised?
Hello Jonathan, On Mon 22 Mar 2021 at 07:57PM +02, Jonathan Carter wrote: > I admit I don't know how to use either properly and have somehow > managed to get away with it, but I do plan on learning how to use dgit > if I can find a good primer on it dgit-maint-gbp(7) is probably what you want. -- Sean Whitton
Re: How can we make Debian packaging more standardised?
On 2021-03-24 10 h 37, Simon Richter wrote: > The vast majority of the software we ship works fine with a two-line > systemd unit and three debhelper control files, and that is exactly what we > should be using for these cases, but we cannot generalize that to a > requirement, and people wishing to contribute to packages not served well > by the abstraction will continue to need to look under the hood. Thus coming back to my original point: if we had a standard Debian packaging guide, it would make everyone's life easier. There currently is none, but the fact this guide can't apply to all Debian packages shouldn't be stopping us. When people want to learn how to package things, we could tell them "hey, have a look at this, this is how most Debian packaging should be done". It would also be easier to standardise team workflows, as we could probably all default to the "Standard guide". -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How can we make Debian packaging more standardised?
Hi, On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:08:14PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote: > The (1) adoption of debhelper by my most packages and (2) the move to > Salsa have been an absolute blessing. They have made contributing to > other packages so much easier. We have multiple standards at different abstraction levels. If we wanted to have a single standard for everything, we'd have to keep the full flexibility that is needed across all packages in the standard, and that would be either massively verbose, or a very leaky abstraction full of escape hatches. The "massively verbose" approach is the interface described in Debian Policy, which lists file formats and a set of core tools to interact with them. People are unhappy with that because it's hard to use. The "leaky abstraction full of escape hatches" is debhelper, which makes the common cases easier, but requires "override" constructs for the uncommon cases. If you drop the escape hatches, you lose the ability to package a bootloader or the kernel until you special-case them in the abstraction frameworks and move the institutional knowledge into a collection of special cases maintained by the authors of the framework package. This is the same technical debate as sysvinit (massively verbose) vs systemd (leaky abstraction full of escape hatches, moving towards a collection of special cases maintained by a small group of people), and likewise it has no optimal solution that offers the full flexibility of being close to the metal at the convenience level of a high abstraction layer, just trade-offs and preferences. The vast majority of the software we ship works fine with a two-line systemd unit and three debhelper control files, and that is exactly what we should be using for these cases, but we cannot generalize that to a requirement, and people wishing to contribute to packages not served well by the abstraction will continue to need to look under the hood. One aspect where we could have a debate about standards is access to package sources, but the result should probably not introduce too many regressions. Right now, we have: - unmodified original archive (sometimes signed by upstream) - minimal download size - mirroring and offline transport - source code corresponding to binaries is kept, as required by the GPL Salsa provides two others instead: - full history - integration with upstream version control We currently reconcile these by exporting packages from Salsa into the archive, dropping history and VCS integration but gaining the other three. This is clearly suboptimal, but I haven't yet seen any proposal that doesn't implicitly assume the availability of cheap fast ubiquitous Internet. One thing I could see working would be using compressed git packs inside the archive (normal dsc, one pack containing the upstream commit and all referenced objects, one pack containing the Debian packaging), which isn't fundamentally different from dsc/orig.tar.gz/debian.tar.gz, but would allow both working with unreleased upstream software and creating commits on top that can be submitted as merge requests. Simon
Re: How can we make Debian packaging more standardised?
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:05:35PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > Even if we don't ultimately enforce it, being able to point people an > officially recommended way to create packages in Debian would be a large > step forward. I'd expect this to be found in https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference and by no coincidence any DD can commit to this repo and MRs asking for reviews are also very much welcome! https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.en.html#best-practices-for-debian-rules is the specific chapter in need of patches. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The system isn't broken. It was built this way. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Gunnar Wolf wrote: Hello, I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and confidence-shattering for many of us. If anything, it's about time to reinstate RMS. His demonization was unconscionable in the first place. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Do we really have to go through this argument *again*? On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: >Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as >> equally valid. > >Equally valid -- no. >Legitimate to express -- yes. > >I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to >Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions >be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and >even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make >them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- >often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being >prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable >because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's >happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad >word and your life might be ruined. Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. If you say unpopular, controversial things then it's entirely reasonable that people around you may evaluate you based on what you've said. They may decide that they don't want to listen to you any more. They may decide that they don't want to work with you any more, or have you in a position of power in a project. Words have power. Decrying this as a "political correctness storm" is a favourite argument of the morally bankrupt who want the freedom to spout hate without being called on it. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Quoting Gerardo Ballabio (2021-03-24 12:32:31) > Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > > equally valid. > > Equally valid -- no. > Legitimate to express -- yes. > > I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to > Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions > be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and > even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make > them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- > often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being > prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable > because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's > happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad > word and your life might be ruined. > > Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing > list!). I believe it is very much to the point: > "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves > exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves > only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. > 624 (1943)" > > What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give > my life to defend your right to say it"? Very well said, Gerardo - but there is a piece missing: Question is not if legitimate for RMS to have and share opinions. Question instead is if RMS mixes personal opinions with official roles. I sometimes sneeze. If I worked at a restaurant, then I served a role as a servant where it is absolutely unacceptable to sneeze. If I failed at understanding that sneezing while acting in my role as servant was unacceptable, then it would be reasonable that management fired me. And it would be sensible to sign a petition to have the board of the restaurant step down if they failed to fire me. Now imagine that I blogged about my sneezing, shared videos of sneezes in slow-motion, and argued in talk shows that my sneezing was special and could cure COVID-19, not spread it. The restaurant managers fired me, but later changed their mind and hired me back again. Should I be fired again, or the management be shamed? Depends on whether I sneezed at work, not if it was public knowledge that I was a sneezer and clueless about how viruses spread - those features have *nothing* to do with my ability to serve food at a restaurant (regardless of my very presence in the restaurant might make sone guests vomit because they remembered some slow-motion video they once saw, produced by me). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as > equally valid. Equally valid -- no. Legitimate to express -- yes. I am really worried about the increasing trend (not specific to Debian) towards demanding that people who hold "dissenting" opinions be removed from their positions, excluded from the public debate, and even fired from their jobs, which if universally applied would make them unable to earn a living. That is what dictatorial regimes do -- often while maintaining a facade of freedom: "Nobody is being prevented from speaking, we're just making their life miserable because we don't like what they're saying". That's exactly what's happening with the current political correctness storm. Say one bad word and your life might be ruined. Just yesterday I happened to read this quotation (on a Debian mailing list!). I believe it is very much to the point: "Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. -- Justice Roberts in 319 U.S. 624 (1943)" What happened to "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll give my life to defend your right to say it"? Gerardo
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Adam Borowski writes: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:56:39PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, >> last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of >> Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and >> confidence-shattering for many of us. >> >> Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to >> express they are disgusted with the turn of events > > I'm also disgusted with such hatred towards the person who started the > whole "Free Software" thing, and personally did most of the work in the > early days. You seem very easily able to ascribe hatred to others, on the basis of no evidence, which makes me wonder whether hatred might be an emotion that you regularly feel yourself, and thus imagine it drives others. If that is the case, you have my sympathy, because I have only very occasionally managed to hate someone during my life, and I found it a thoroughly unpleasant experience. As it happens, I'm happy to give RMS the credit for the direction of quite a lot of my life, given that I read the GNU manifesto at around the time I left university, and the thinking therein was definitely a major driver in me setting up my business supporting Free Software. Despite the respect that inevitably goes with that, I just signed the letter[1], not out of hate, but rather in the hope that RMS will not again be placed in a position where he can further tarnish his reputation with his obnoxious opinions about things other than Free Software. Cheers, Phil. [1] https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: How to leverage money to accomplish high impact Debian projects
On Ma, 23 mar 21, 16:40:32, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > That's a good point, I agree. What about packages that we have lost > interest in, but that our users very much have not? Admittedly, I have > no idea of what the cardinality of that intersection is. [just a user here] If such packages and users exist it looks like a good candidate to set up a business financed via crowd funding. Or maybe Debian should provide the crowd funding platform for this. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 24/03/21 4:26 am, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Hello, > > I hope not to be too inflamatory with this. As you are surely aware, > last week Richard Stallman was reinstated as part of the Board of > Directors of the FSF. That is something deeply disturbing and > confidence-shattering for many of us. > > Some people have moved to action -- if nothing more, at least to > express they are disgusted with the turn of events, and to say the > organizations they represent believe it to be detrimental to the FSF's > own image and projection into the future. Particularly, I mean the > following two pages, of very different nature: > > https://opensource.org/OSI_Response > https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ > > Now, as for my question: I thought repeatedly over the last couple of > days whether to start something like this in Debian... But, what would > it take for the project to issue a statement in this line? Would we > have to pass a GR? > > I am sure there is a precedent of a position statement being announced > without having a formal vote about it, but I cannot find it at the > moment. Sruthi, Jonathan: What is your take on this? If you were a DPL > today, would you feel OK issuing a position statement on behalf of the > project? In this particular instance, I personally agree with your views and I believe Debian should have a position statement. I think for position statements, we should have a GR and if I was a DPL, I would have proposed one by now. If there is a possibility to issue a statement without a formal vote, I would have initiated an initial discussion on -private and went ahead with a short statement first and a detailed version after the GR. > ... > (And yes, with this I am probably forcing you to disclose a position > on the subject... I'm sorry for that. But I think that, as a candidate > for the DPL position, knowing your position on the issue also makes > sense) I am more than happy to share my position on this. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 24/03/21 5:52 am, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > No human can do anything that makes them immune to criticism. This is > not a matter of hate, I actually doubt anyone who signed the petition > really "hates" RMS. > RMS without a doubt did a lot of good with starting the FSF and his > early work on Free Software and we owe him thanks for this, but he > *also* inflicted a lot of damage on his own organization, hurt a lot > of people, has shown to be unable to learn from mistakes and empathise > with people. There are a lot of examples of behavior that pretty much > everyone should deem inacceptable. > > So, even though RMS has done good things, he also is in a way the > worst person to have a leading role in the FSF. Think about the signal > we send if we as a community are okay with a person openly debating > whether sex with children is okay in a leading role at the top of the > organization that's promoting software freedom. I also very much > question whether his strong technical influence on GNU projects is a > good thing (he did in fact revert community-made decisions in the > past). > > It is also not like this issue is a new thing. He knows about his > behavior, has been told about it time and time again, and doesn't seem > to have any sensitivity at all as to how his actions and words impact > other people and reflect on his organization. Furthermore, the FSF > board itself, by putting him in a leading role again, also does seem > insensitive about that. > If you are just a guy with an opinion on the internet, the situation > *may* be different (but one could argue against that too), but if you > are in any position of leadership you have to be held accountable for > your actions and words and have to reflect on them. In other words, be > a good leader. RMS failed at that (and arguably as a human) and he > should be held accountable for his decisions. That hasn't happened, > really, and if it doesn't happen we are in a way saying that we don't > care if someone at the top of an organization misbehaves. > ... > It's not like it's a call to silence him forever. It is however a call > to remove him from a position he appears to be unfit for. Inclusivity > and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as equally > valid. +1 I think I could not have worded my thoughts better. > Cheers, >Matthias > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
