Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Gunnar Wolf]

Kurt Roeckx dijo [Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:38:24PM +0200]:
> The option has been committed to the website, it should appear soon.

Thanks, Kurt.

The vote is now in progress, and it does include this option. I just
felt needed to state that I didn't include it in my call for vote
because, early yesterday when I sent it, it was not yet in the website
-- it was not yet an amendment accepted by the Project Secretary. Of
course, I am completely OK with it being part of the vote (in case
anyone wondered about my opinion ;-) )


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[Matthias Klumpp]

Am So., 4. Apr. 2021 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Simon McVittie :
>
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 at 21:46:08 +0200, someone claiming to be Enrico Zini 
> wrote:
> > We explicitly refuse to acknowledge irrelevant political issues
>
> I was surprised to read this apparently coming from Enrico, particularly
> since it doesn't seem consistent with what Enrico has said in other
> threads regarding RMS. It turns out not to be signed with the same key.
> [...]

I did actually read this as satire and was quite amused by it - I
didn't think it could have been read as a serious request until the
first response to it.
And writing satire is something Enrico would absolutely do ;-)

Cheers,
Matthias

-- 
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/

Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[Holger Levsen]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:51:29PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> It seems highly likely that the message to which I'm replying was not
> sent or authorized by Enrico, and that its sender is trying to mislead
> Debian members by impersonating a prominent and respected developer.

IRC revealed that the key used to sign this message might or might
not be the same as the one used to sign a message on April 1st.



IOW: I do "blame" Enrico for that mail, too. I also think it was one of the
best mails in these threads, by far.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

I'm looking forward to Corona being a beer again and Donald a duck.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Debian Project Leader election 2021: First call for votes

[Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx]

Hi,

This is the first call for votes on the DPL election of 2021.

 Voting period starts  2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
 Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC

This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.

The details of the candidate's platform can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/

Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a mail to
   bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "leader2021".

To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.


HOW TO VOTE

First, read the full text of the platform.

You might also want to read discussions with the candidates at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/

To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:

  leader2...@vote.debian.org

The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.

There are 3 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 3. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice.  Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 3.

You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally.  Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.

To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None Of The Above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None Of The Above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.  (Note: if the
"None Of The Above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None Of The Above" choice by the voting software).

Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: leader2...@vote.debian.org.

Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.

NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring.  You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.

The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant).  To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.

VOTING SECRECY

This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list.

VOTING FORM

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
f9533fc1-129b-41db-822c-be8fe8e9faa6
[ ] Choice 1: Jonathan Carter
[ ] Choice 2: Sruthi Chandran
[ ] Choice 3: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--

The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
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General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board: First call for votes

[Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx]

Hi,

This is the first call for votes on the General Resolution about
a statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board.

 Voting period starts  2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
 Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC

The following ballot is for voting on a statement regarding Richard
Stallman's readmission to the FSF board.

This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.

The details of the general resolution can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002

Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
   bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "gr_rms".

To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.

HOW TO VOTE

To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:

  gr_...@vote.debian.org

The form you need to fill out is contained below in this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.

There are 8 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 8. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 8.

You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.

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

Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: gr_...@vote.debian.org.

Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts.

NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.

The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.


VOTING SECRECY

This is a non-secret vote. After the voting period is over the details on
who voted what will be published. During the vote itself the only
information that will be published is who voted.

You can encrypt your message to the voting system to keep your vote secret
until the end of the voting period. The software will also try to keep
your vote secret and will encrypt the reply it sends to you.

VOTING FORM

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4c932db2-1cdc-4ea0-a6f7-ac8ba2fc010c
[ ] Choice 1: Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
[ ] Choice 2: Call for Stallman's resignation from all FSF bodies
[ ] Choice 3: Discourage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a 
leading position
[ ] Choice 4: Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
[ ] Choice 5: Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in 
rms-support-letter.github.io
[ ] Choice 6: Denounce the witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF
[ ] Choice 7: Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
[ ] Choice 8: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--

BALLOT OPTIONS

Choice 1: Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
=

The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard
Stallman's readmission to the FSF board 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 o

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:14:31AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:43:38PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Move choice 7 to 8 and put it seven.
> >
> > [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing a witch-hunt against RMS.
> >
> > (maybe Craig has a better idea)
> 
> Thanks, looks goodexcept for two problems:
> 
> 1. you've used the wrong article "a" instead of "the".  It's gramatically
> incorrect, this isn't one of multiple witch-hunts, there's only one, singular.
> So "the" is the correct article.
> 
> 2. the witch-hunt is against the FSF board as well as RMS - that's kind of
> what makes it a witch-hunt, rather than just persecution of an individual.
> 
> [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing the witch-hunt against RMS & the FSF.

I think I just changed all places from:
Denounce a witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF
to:
Denounce the witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF


(Website is rebuilding, should be online in about 5 minutes.)


Kurt

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:43:38PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Move choice 7 to 8 and put it seven.
>
> [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing a witch-hunt against RMS.
>
> (maybe Craig has a better idea)

Thanks, looks goodexcept for two problems:

1. you've used the wrong article "a" instead of "the".  It's gramatically
incorrect, this isn't one of multiple witch-hunts, there's only one, singular.
So "the" is the correct article.

2. the witch-hunt is against the FSF board as well as RMS - that's kind of
what makes it a witch-hunt, rather than just persecution of an individual.

[ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing the witch-hunt against RMS & the FSF.

craig

Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[Simon McVittie]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 at 21:46:08 +0200, someone claiming to be Enrico Zini wrote:
> We explicitly refuse to acknowledge irrelevant political issues

I was surprised to read this apparently coming from Enrico, particularly
since it doesn't seem consistent with what Enrico has said in other
threads regarding RMS. It turns out not to be signed with the same key.

Key fingerprint used to sign
, matching
Enrico's key in the official Debian keyring:
1793 D6AB 7566 3E6B F104  953A 634F 4BD1 E7AD 5568

Key fingerprint used to sign the message to which I'm replying:
2490 211A D036 087E 6D1D  9A92 D0FF 49CB E3F4 FB68

It seems highly likely that the message to which I'm replying was not
sent or authorized by Enrico, and that its sender is trying to mislead
Debian members by impersonating a prominent and respected developer.

I don't think passing off a message as coming from a different author is
consistent with taking any sort of moral high ground (for example based
on a position of free speech, meritocracy or opposing "cancel culture")
and I'm disappointed to see it on Debian mailing lists.

smcv


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[gregor herrmann]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 21:46:08 +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:

> Hello,

Hm?

| --
| GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 
| 
| [-- End of signed data --]
| 
| [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr  4 00:09:30 2021) --]
| gpg: Signature made Sat Apr  3 21:46:04 2021 CEST
| gpg:using RSA key 2490211AD036087E6D1D9A92D0FF49CBE3F4FB68
| gpg: requesting key 0xD0FF49CBE3F4FB68 from hkps server 
hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
| gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
| [-- End of PGP output --]


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Orquesta Aragon: El Charlatan


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Draft ballot statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board

[Kurt Roeckx]

Here is the draft ballot:

 Voting period starts  2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
 Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC

The following ballot is for voting on a regarding Richard Stallman's
readmission to the FSF board

This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.

The details of the general resolution can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002

Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a signed mail to
   bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "gr_rms".

To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.

HOW TO VOTE

To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:

  gr_...@vote.debian.org

The form you need to fill out is contained below in this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.

There are 8 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 8. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 8.

You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.

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

Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: gr_...@vote.debian.org.

Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">")
that your reply inserts.

NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.

The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant). To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.


VOTING SECRECY

This is a non-secret vote. After the voting period is over the details on
who voted what will be published. During the vote itself the only
information that will be published is who voted.

You can encrypt your message to the voting system to keep your vote secret
until the end of the voting period. The software will also try to keep
your vote secret and will encrypt the reply it sends to you.

VOTING FORM

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4c932db2-1cdc-4ea0-a6f7-ac8ba2fc010c
[ ] Choice 1: Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
[ ] Choice 2: Call for Stallman's resignation from all FSF bodies
[ ] Choice 3: Discourage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a 
leading position
[ ] Choice 4: Call on the FSF to further its governance processes
[ ] Choice 5: Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in 
rms-support-letter.github.io
[ ] Choice 6: Denounce a witch-hunt against RMS and the FSF
[ ] Choice 7: Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue
[ ] Choice 8: Further Discussion
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--

BALLOT OPTIONS

Choice 1: Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io
=

The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard
Stallman's readmission to the FSF board 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 

Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

Thank you to Enrico Zini for another unifying proposal.

> Title: Reaffirm the values of the majority
>
> == CHOICE TEXT BELOW ==
> Debian commits to give priority, resources, and energy, to those who
> actually get the work done in the distribution.
>
> We explicitly refuse to acknowledge irrelevant political issues such as
> misogyny, ableism, transphobia and all other similar concerns that have
> nothing to do with the technical work that is the focus of our
> distribution.
>
> We also commit to respecting and preserving the good name of the people
> who write and maintain the software that we use daily. Should they
> become the target of accusations that may tarnish their well earned
> reputation, we will stand behind them and refuse to hold them
> accountable for anything except the quality of their technical
> contributions.
> ===

Seconded.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Draft ballot DPL election

[Kurt Roeckx]

Here is a draft ballot for the DPL election:

 Voting period starts  2021-04-04 00:00:00 UTC
 Votes must be received by 2021-04-17 23:59:59 UTC

This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the constitution at https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.
For voting questions or problems contact secret...@debian.org.

The details of the candidate's platform can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/

Also, note that you can get a fresh ballot any time before the end of
the vote by sending a mail to
   bal...@vote.debian.org
with the subject "leader2021".

To vote you need to be a Debian Developer.


HOW TO VOTE

First, read the full text of the platform.

You might also want to read discussions with the candidates at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/

To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot filled out to a
dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below.
The dedicated email address this ballot should be sent to is:

  leader2...@vote.debian.org

The form you need to fill out is contained at the bottom of this
message, marked with two lines containing the characters
'-=-=-=-=-=-'. Do not erase anything between those lines, and do not
change the choice names.

There are 3 choices in the form, which you may rank with numbers between
1 and 3. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1.
Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue until you
reach your last choice.  Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger
than 3.

You may skip numbers, leave some choices unranked, and rank options
equally.  Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices.

To vote "no, no matter what", rank "None Of The Above" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "None Of The Above"
choice and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank.  (Note: if the
"None Of The Above" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the
"None Of The Above" choice by the voting software).

Finally, mail the filled out ballot to: leader2...@vote.debian.org.

Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that
your reply inserts.

NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is
in the Debian keyring.  You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed,
encrypted ballot: use the vote key appended below for encryption.

The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an
unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail
(RFC 3156 compliant).  To avoid problems I suggest you use PGP/MIME.

VOTING SECRECY

This is a secret vote. After the voting period there will be a record
of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain
a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted
that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify
that your vote is in the list.

- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
f9533fc1-129b-41db-822c-be8fe8e9faa6
[ ] Choice 1: Jonathan Carter
[ ] Choice 2: Sruthi Chandran
[ ] Choice 3: None Of The Above
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--

The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created
for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project
secretary, is appended below.

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
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New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority

[Enrico Zini]

Hello,

I think the ballot is missing an option to capture the energy that I've
perceived on -vote in the last few days.

Title: Reaffirm the values of the majority

== CHOICE TEXT BELOW ==
Debian commits to give priority, resources, and energy, to those who
actually get the work done in the distribution.

We explicitly refuse to acknowledge irrelevant political issues such as
misogyny, ableism, transphobia and all other similar concerns that have
nothing to do with the technical work that is the focus of our
distribution.

We also commit to respecting and preserving the good name of the people
who write and maintain the software that we use daily. Should they
become the target of accusations that may tarnish their well earned
reputation, we will stand behind them and refuse to hold them
accountable for anything except the quality of their technical
contributions.
===


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Michael Biebl]

Am 03.04.21 um 20:16 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:12:50PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:

Short and simple:

TEXT OF OPTION 5


Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against

Richard

Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of

the

Free Software Foundation.




I think this option should be on the ballot as well for a fair
representation off all sides. So seconded.


This mail wasn't signed. There are more than enough seconds
already.


Grrh, sorry. Thanks Kurt!





OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

The option has been committed to the website, it should appear
soon.

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 08:12:50PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Short and simple:
> >
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> >
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against
> Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of
> the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> >
> > 
> 
> I think this option should be on the ballot as well for a fair
> representation off all sides. So seconded.

This mail wasn't signed. There are more than enough seconds
already.


Kurt

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Michael Biebl]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board 
of the

> Free Software Foundation.
>
> 

I think this option should be on the ballot as well for a fair 
representation off all sides. So seconded.


Regards,
Michael

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:15:22PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> My previous attempt yielded an invalid signature for me, so, trying again with
> a different mailer...

This one worked.


Kurt

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Am 03.04.21 um 01:56 schrieb Craig Sanders:
>  > Short and simple:
>  >
>  > TEXT OF OPTION 5
>  > 
>  >
>  > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt
>  > against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the
>  > members of the board of the Free Software Foundation.
>  >
>  > 
> Seconded. Thanks.

I can not verify this signature.


Kurt

RESEND of "Neutral option"

[Felix Lechner]

HI,

PLEASE IGNORE MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE

Sorry, I think I copied and pasted the wrong text. This is the option I
would like to propose. It should follow Holger's suggestion:

> Debian refuses to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman,
> the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.

Sorry about the confusion. I was nervous because of the tight deadline!

Kind regards
Felix Lechner


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Neutral option

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

With people from a wide spectrum in Debian seemingly supporting what is
known as the "neutral option", I would like to propose it is well:

> TEXT OF "NEUTRAL" OPTION
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.

Kind rgards
Felix Lechner


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Roger Shimizu]

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 6:15 PM Holger Levsen  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
>
> I'd sponsor this if this were actually neutrally worded like "Debian refuses
> to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman, the Free Software 
> Foundation,
> and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation."
>
> Though even that is a statement.

Just like naming of GNU, it's not what it is.

Quite fits OSS philosophy, so I'd probably vote for this if it becomes
an official option.

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Adam Borowski (2021-04-03 18:21:54)
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> I'd prefer a more positive wording, such as "Debian re-affirms the
> Diversity Statement as written, and thus denounces ...", but your version is
> good enough.

Seconded.

I really dislike this communication style, seemingly a direct 
consequence of the choice to shorten the discussion time.

 - 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: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

My previous attempt yielded an invalid signature for me, so, trying again with
a different mailer...

Am 03.04.21 um 01:56 schrieb Craig Sanders:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt
> against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the
> members of the board of the Free Software Foundation.
>
> 
Seconded. Thanks.

Micha



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Am 03.04.21 um 01:56 schrieb Craig Sanders:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt
> against Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the
> members of the board of the Free Software Foundation.
>
> 
Seconded. Thanks.

Micha

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=fb+J
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 06:21:54PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> I'd prefer a more positive wording, such as "Debian re-affirms the
> Diversity Statement as written, and thus denounces ...", but your version is
> good enough.

I will not accept any changes other than what I think is minor at
this point, except when there are enough people to confirm that
change.


Kurt

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adam Borowski]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 
> 

Seconded.

I'd prefer a more positive wording, such as "Debian re-affirms the
Diversity Statement as written, and thus denounces ...", but your version is
good enough.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian is one big family.  Including that weird uncle
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ and ultra-religious in-laws.
⠈⠳⣄


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 17:38:17+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Short and simple:
> > 
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> 
> Someone please propose what the name of the option on the ballot
> should be, and where I should put it in the order.

Move choice 7 to 8 and put it seven.

[ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing a witch-hunt against RMS.

(maybe Craig has a better idea)

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
> 
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.

Someone please propose what the name of the option on the ballot
should be, and where I should put it in the order.


Kurt

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 15:41:43+0200, Milan Zamazal a écrit :
> > "SM" == Steve McIntyre  writes:
> 
> SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful
> >>> theoretical
> 
> >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a
> >>> miserable fuckup in the end.
> >>> 
> >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see
> >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would
> >>> want to be leaders in such regimes.
> >>> 
> >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
> >> 
> >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.
> 
> SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
> SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
> >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not
> >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not
> >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should
> >> be "cancelled".  Free speech is a beautiful working practice but
> >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to
> >> "cancel" free speech.
> 
> SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please
> SM> accept that and leave it there?
> 
> Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both
> theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite

Theoretical, with small "reviews" from the party. Which means not
theoretically accurate at all.

> sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or
> putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech.
> I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not
> helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways.
> 
> Regards,

I explained in what way I compare both. You may consider it was not the
best way to illustrate my point and I'm eager to take that remark, but
this connection is not, /per se/, absurd.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 03:53:58PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:20:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Questions to the Project Secretary:
> 
> Was this email (which is not the repost email) a validly signed email
> proposing an amendment to the GR?

I did verify the signature, and it was good. The subject of the
email clearly indicates to me it's an amendment to the GR. It
would have been nice that it said it replaced the whole proposal
with that text, but I think it's clear enough what the intention
is. So I think the answer to your question is yes.

But note that at that time it's still just a proposal, it's not
been accepted, nor has it received enough sponsors.

> If yes:
> 
> Since A.2.3. of our constitution says "calls" and not "called",
> do you agree that a vote has not been called before the person who calls
> for a vote has made a statement on what they believe the wordings of the 
> resolution and any relevant amendments are?

I currently don't see why the call only happened after the other
things happened. As far as I know, it's not exactly defined when the
discussion period stops, and it seems you want a clear point. But
since there is no clear point, I am flexible up to a certain point.

A.2.3 also seems to that they should copy the full text all the
options. The text is already on the website, so I see little point
in doing that.


Kurt

Re: Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
>
> 

seconded

Cheers,

- --Barak.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=K2ff
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)]

Quoting Craig Sanders (2021-04-03 01:56:45)
>> Short and simple:
>>
>> TEXT OF OPTION 5
>> 
>>
>> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
>> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
>> Free Software Foundation.
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>

seconded.


Yours Sincerely,
Paul





OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Craig Sanders (2021-04-03 01:56:45)
> Short and simple:
> 
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 
> 
> 

Seconded.

I would have preferred more time to discuss wording, but that was not 
sadly provided.


 - 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: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Norbert Preining]

> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.

seconded

Best

Norbert



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
> 
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 
> 

seconded

cu
Adrian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=eN1K
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 05:48:47AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 12:34 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
> >
> > The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.
> 
> That does not seem right. The submission arrived during the discussion
> period and was only formally deficient, yes?

There was actually no signed amendment before the call for vote.
But it still requires at least 5 people the sponsor it.

> Since the discussion period was already shortened and we also rely on
> a particular reading of unclear wording in the constitution, I think
> it would further the sense of democratic expression to accept Craig's
> submission.

If you really think we need more options, you will need to have
enough sponsor before 18 UTC, 4 hours from now.


Kurt

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Milan Zamazal]

> "SM" == Steve McIntyre  writes:

SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful
>>> theoretical

>>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a
>>> miserable fuckup in the end.
>>> 
>>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see
>>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would
>>> want to be leaders in such regimes.
>>> 
>>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
>> 
>> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.

SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.

Yes, please.

>> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not
>> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not
>> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should
>> be "cancelled".  Free speech is a beautiful working practice but
>> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to
>> "cancel" free speech.

SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please
SM> accept that and leave it there?

Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both
theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite
sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or
putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech.
I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not
helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways.

Regards,
Milan

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:20:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 
> 

Questions to the Project Secretary:

Was this email (which is not the repost email) a validly signed email
proposing an amendment to the GR?

If yes:

Since A.2.3. of our constitution says "calls" and not "called",
do you agree that a vote has not been called before the person who calls
for a vote has made a statement on what they believe the wordings of the 
resolution and any relevant amendments are?

cu
Adrian

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Felix Lechner]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 12:34 AM Kurt Roeckx  wrote:
>
> The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.

That does not seem right. The submission arrived during the discussion
period and was only formally deficient, yes?

Since the discussion period was already shortened and we also rely on
a particular reading of unclear wording in the constitution, I think
it would further the sense of democratic expression to accept Craig's
submission.

As an additional consideration, Craig's proposal joins a much smaller
set of options on the side favoring Richard Stallman, which leads to
greater balance among the options presented on the ballot.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:21:52PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum discussion
> > time.
> 
> oh wow, a discussion. and a discussion has the power to change debian's
> constitution?
>...

Kurt is right on that, but it might have been more helpful if he had 
copied the relevant part of our constitution:

  A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in 
  which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to match.

  If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of the 
  resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer of a 
  formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and will be 
  voted on.


> craig

cu
Adrian

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Adam,

Am 03.04.21 um 14:31 schrieb Adam Borowski:

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:59:53PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:

The last amendment (before mine) was accepted on March 30th, which means the
earliest a vote can be called with a shortened 1 week discussion period is
April 7th.

Any CFV before then is invalid.


This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum
discussion time.


Constitution, A.2.4:

# The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
# amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
# amendments have been proposed and accepted.

Craig is correct.


No. As Kurt pointed out earlier 
(https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/04/msg00117.html) no 
amendment was accepted yet, so the minimum discussion time wasn't reset.


Anyhow, in any doubt, the interpretation of our constitution in this 
regard is all up to Kurt by virtue of the current delegation.


Regards,
Micha

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Craig,

Am 03.04.21 um 14:21 schrieb Craig Sanders:

This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum discussion
time.

oh wow, a discussion. and a discussion has the power to change debian's
constitution?


Debian's constitution wasn't changed. Please calm down and read up in 
the other thread how this question was answered before.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/04/msg00117.html

Regards,
Micha

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adam Borowski]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:59:53PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > The last amendment (before mine) was accepted on March 30th, which means the
> > earliest a vote can be called with a shortened 1 week discussion period is
> > April 7th.
> > 
> > Any CFV before then is invalid.
> 
> This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum
> discussion time.

Constitution, A.2.4:

# The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
# amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
# amendments have been proposed and accepted.

Craig is correct.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ .--[ Makefile ]
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ # beware of races
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ all: pillage burn
⠈⠳⣄ `

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum discussion
> time.

oh wow, a discussion. and a discussion has the power to change debian's
constitution?


in any case: it will be wonderful to see Debian commit Libel against Richard
Stallman, The FSF, and the individual board members of the FSF.

Like, has anyone actually read that open letter on github.io? There are
numerous actionable libels against all of those parties.


I hope the supporters of this GR are willing to be personally liable, since
they're the ones pushing for it.

craig

--
craig sanders 

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:56:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:38:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > Short and simple:
> > > >
> > > > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > > > Richard
> > > > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of 
> > > > the
> > > > Free Software Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > >
> > > The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.
> > 
> > Since when is it over?
> > 
> > The DPL changing the *minimum* discussion period is a minimum only, it
> > does not set a maximum.
> 
> A vote has been called.

For the record, I would like to state that Kurt is doing the right 
thing by being a neutral project secretary who executes the rules.

If decisions made by people other than Kurt make it impossible for this
option to be an amendment, then he is not to blame.

> Kurt

cu
Adrian

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:32:41PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>On Saturday, 3 April 2021 11:19:38 AM AEDT Craig Sanders wrote:
>> The witch hunt is not within debian, debian's just being dragged into the
>> angry mob.
>
>Yes to everything you've said, Craig. And the attack on Debian has been
>successful so far. So many man-hours were lost on this GR already in
>the midst of the pre-release freeze, just to name one problem...

Please give up with the hyperbole already. There is no "attack" on
Debian here at all. We have a number of Debian developers asking that
the project lends its voice to a community-wide call for a safe,
non-hostile environment for all.

We're about to have a vote on that and some alternative options,
following the process that we've all followed for years. Let's wait
and see how that turns out.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...

Re: What does FD Mean

[Sam Hartman]

> "Timo" == Timo Röhling  writes:

Timo> * Mathias Behrle  [2021-04-03 10:22]:
>> [ ] Further discussion [ ] Do nothing, leave the question
>> unresolved [ ] None of the above

Timo> The way I see it, all these have the same consequence for a
Timo> vote (that is, none of the other options is acceptable). The
Timo> Constitution will always permit another vote as long as K+1
Timo> developers introduce/sponsor it. And anyone who feels
Timo> particularly strongly about continuing/terminating the
Timo> discussion, will probably post it to debian-vote no matter
Timo> what.

I agree.
Also, as someone who has been in the position of interpreting votes,
having these options on the ballot would actually make that harder in
some cases.

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:59:53PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:56:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > A vote has been called.
> 
> Nope, can't have been.
> 
> The last amendment (before mine) was accepted on March 30th, which means the
> earliest a vote can be called with a shortened 1 week discussion period is
> April 7th.
> 
> Any CFV before then is invalid.

This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum
discussion time.


Kurt

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:08:50PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Am 03.04.21 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it.
> 
> Do you (or anybody actually) have a idea how to deal best with the old RMS
> GR if this one is formally accepted?

One option would be to run both in parallel.

The anti-witch-hunt option would have been option [G] had there not been 
a public request that someone should call for a vote 1.5 hours after the 
unsigned version of this amendment was proposed, it would sound logical
to ask for it to be voted at the same time even now that it has been 
forced to turn this into a separate GR.

> Regards,
> Micha

cu
Adrian

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Steve McIntyre]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
>> fuckup in the end.
>> 
>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
>> working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
>> leaders in such regimes.
>> 
>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.
>
>What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.

You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the
person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate.

>You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your
>point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work
>even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled".
>Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible
>ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech.

And other people disagree with you on those points. Please accept that
and leave it there?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:56:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> A vote has been called.

Nope, can't have been.

The last amendment (before mine) was accepted on March 30th, which means the
earliest a vote can be called with a shortened 1 week discussion period is
April 7th.

Any CFV before then is invalid.

craig

--
craig sanders 

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:38:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > Short and simple:
> > >
> > > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > > 
> > >
> > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > > Richard
> > > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of 
> > > the
> > > Free Software Foundation.
> > >
> > > 
> >
> > The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.
> 
> Since when is it over?
> 
> The DPL changing the *minimum* discussion period is a minimum only, it
> does not set a maximum.

A vote has been called.


Kurt

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:14:53AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
>
> I'd sponsor this if this were actually neutrally worded like "Debian refuses
> to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman, the Free Software
> Foundation, and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation."

"discussion"?

What's happening to stallman and the FSF is **NOT** a "discussion".

craig

--
craig sanders 

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:25:13AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it.

why not do that yourself?

craig

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Short and simple:
> >
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> >
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> >
> > 
>
> The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.

Since when is it over?

The DPL changing the *minimum* discussion period is a minimum only, it
does not set a maximum.

ps: are you so desperate to supress all signs of dissent that you'll try to
block an option that has approximately fuck-all chance of actually winning? or
even getting more than a few votes?

craig

--
craig sanders 

Re: What does FD Mean

[Timo Röhling]

* Mathias Behrle  [2021-04-03 10:22]:

[ ] Further discussion
[ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
[ ] None of the above


The way I see it, all these have the same consequence for a vote (that
is, none of the other options is acceptable). The Constitution will
always permit another vote as long as K+1 developers introduce/sponsor
it. And anyone who feels particularly strongly about
continuing/terminating the discussion, will probably post it to
debian-vote no matter what.

- Timo


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Micha Lenk (2021-04-03 13:08:50)
> Am 03.04.21 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor 
> > it.
> 
> Do you (or anybody actually) have a idea how to deal best with the old 
> RMS GR if this one is formally accepted?

If this one is accepted then I can only interpret the old one as missing 
this option and if this option had been included then it would have won 
over the other options.

Can anyone imagine voting in favor of this one with a different intent?


 - 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: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Craig, hi Zlatan,

Am 03.04.21 um 10:18 schrieb Zlatan Todoric:


On 4/3/21 01:52, Craig Sanders wrote:

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:07:15PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

Yes, lets use that I am not native English speaker and drown the
conversation with some pointless pedantic approaches now and bunch of 
words.
Oh, FFS!  I was giving you a face-saving excuse for your ignorance, 
not using it against you.

On the contrary, [...]


This...


[...] we have a saying for this:

Претакање из шупљег у празно.

Which would mean something like "you say a lot but actually nothing".
we have a saying in English, "You can't teach someone who refuses to 
learn".

Which means exactly what it says.

And it applies to you, no matter how much I try to help you.


... and this sounds like you're both somehow lost in understanding each 
other over mail, resulting in mails that contribute only little to the 
discussion about the vote at hand relevant to the broader audience on 
this list.


May I kindly ask you to proceed your conversation off-list?

Regards,
Micha

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Micha Lenk]

Hi Adrian,

Am 03.04.21 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:

Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it.


Do you (or anybody actually) have a idea how to deal best with the old 
RMS GR if this one is formally accepted?


Regards,
Micha

Re: What does FD Mean

[Philip Hands]

Mathias Behrle  writes:

> * Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):
>
>> > "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle  writes:
>> 
>> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
>> >> B FD, FD probably does map to no fairly well.
>> 
>> Mathias> I would really like to avoid this situation, where FD is
>> Mathias> expected to leave room for such wide interpretations,
>> Mathias> especially if it is avoidable as easy as to put at least
>> Mathias> some of the alternative options on the ballot. A ballot
>> Mathias> with only 'yes' and 'FD' should IMO just not happen.
>> 
>> I think it's fine in cases where you have fairly strong confidence that
>> yes will win.
>> Let's say that for some reason we really needed a project statement that
>> the GPL was a DFSG-free license.
>> I think yes|FD would be fine.
>> Or for an example that actually happened, we needed a GR to replace
>> chairman with chair in the constitution.
>> In that case, I think yes|FD is fine.
>
> I see your use case, but I still think that even on such a topic there could 
> be
> someone who thinks that the topic - for whatever reason - shouldn't be
> discussed at all. Why should they vote FD?

The reason we have it as FD rather than some explicit end-of-discussion
option is to avoid the disappointment that would result from a majority
of the project voting for e.g. "Just Stop!"

... and the discussion continuing nonetheless.

At least with FD you know what to expect.

Also, for the people that want to continue going on about something, I
think FD is more likely to make them calm down than an explicit
prohibition against which they could feel righteous anger[1].

Cheers, Phil.

[1] prompting long and tedious threads about Freedom of Speech.
If you're looking for less discussion, vote FD ;-)
-- 
|)|  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: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Milan Zamazal]

> "DS" == Dmitry Smirnov  writes:

DS> So many man-hours were lost on this GR already in the midst of
DS> the pre-release freeze, just to name one problem...

DS> We are on a slippery slope of turning Debian into political
DS> project.

One good thing about this GR is that it will show us how much support
the various vocal groups actually have.  I had to go through a lot of
annoying stuff again due to this GR (unlike technical GRs, it can’t be
easily ignored, left to be decided by more knowledgeable DDs and then
accept the outcome whatever it is) but it caused me to reflect on human
behavior, society and Debian again and now I’d like to know the answer
about Debian.

Debian already is a political project to some extent, if nothing else
then in its stance on free and proprietary software.  Let’s see how far
it is with some other things.  Whether we’d like asking the question or
not, we’ll get the answer and can further proceed based on facts rather
than impressions we could get from debates.

Regards,
Milan

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Holger Levsen (2021-04-03 11:14:53)
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> 
> I'd sponsor this if this were actually neutrally worded like "Debian refuses 
> to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman, the Free Software 
> Foundation,
> and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation."
> 
> Though even that is a statement.

I'd sponsor this if a) neutrally worded and b) initiated before the 
current GR as completed - i.e. driven by the lack of adequate time for 
preparing the current GR instead of the outcome of it.


 - 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: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Holger Levsen]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> There are non-DD people who maintain more packages and with higher total
> popcon than DDs, but aren't DD because didn't bother to jump through all the
> several hoops to become a DD.
> 
> If you do not want DMs, make a proposal and vote to kick all the DMs out
> from Debian. If it passes then be ready to adopt a few hundreds of packages
> or see debian crash and burn.
 
sigh.

I'm quite annoyed at people judging other people due to their 'status' in
Debian instead of what they write (or actually do). The above quoted mail
is a sad example why.

To all non-DD, non-uploaders, non-technical people, non-foo: Thank you for
your work on Debian!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.
(Bertolt Brecht)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Holger Levsen]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 

I'd sponsor this if this were actually neutrally worded like "Debian refuses 
to participate in the discussion of Richard Stallman, the Free Software 
Foundation,
and the members of the board of the Free Software Foundation."

Though even that is a statement.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

No future.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: What does FD Mean

[Judit Foglszinger]

> With the use cases of GRs coming to my mind (I certainly forgot some) I would
> consider as useful to have the following standard options on each ballot:
> 
> [... other options ... ]
> 
> [ ] Further discussion
> [ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
> [ ] None of the above
> 
> 
> While I agree that we will never be able to put all options in every detail on
> the ballots the basic choices above would remove a lot of stress and
> uncertainty in the interpretation of FD. 

Wondering, what that would do to
'To vote "no, no matter what", rank "Further Discussion" as more desirable
than the unacceptable choices'

What does FD Mean (was: Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»)

[Mathias Behrle]

* Russ Allbery: " Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
  readmission to the FSF board»" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:49:21 -0700):

> Mathias Behrle  writes:
> 
> > I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
> > vote explicitely that nothing should be done on behalf of the project
> > and that further discussion is *not* needed.
> 
> I consider the naming of "further discussion" a wry joke on the fact that
> the above outcome is, uh, unlikely.  Good luck getting everyone in Debian
> to stop discussing something.

I am aware of the fact htat I won't stop discussions, but at least I do not
want to be forced to say 'further discussion' if I just want the contrary.
 
> I have no real objections to renaming "further discussion" to "none of the
> above"; I just doubt it would accomplish anything and therefore am not
> sure it's worth the effort.

I would be glad if we would put more precise options on the ballot as I put it
in my answer to Sam. Using 'None of the above' instead of 'FD' would be at
least a first step into that direction.

> And personally, not that anyone should make any decisions on this basis, I'm
> kind of fond of the self-aware joke. It's good for us as a project to poke
> fun at our own weaknesses, since it helps us keep them in mind.

Yes, but joke aside it gives me really a hard time to say FD if I want exactly
the contrary.




-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Short and simple:
> > 
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> > 
> > 
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against 
> > Richard
> > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> > Free Software Foundation.
> > 
> > 
> 
> The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.

Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it.

> Kurt

cu
Adrian

Re: What does FD Mean

[Mathias Behrle]

* Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):

> > "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle  writes:
> 
> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
> >> B FD, FD probably does map to no fairly well.
> 
> Mathias> I would really like to avoid this situation, where FD is
> Mathias> expected to leave room for such wide interpretations,
> Mathias> especially if it is avoidable as easy as to put at least
> Mathias> some of the alternative options on the ballot. A ballot
> Mathias> with only 'yes' and 'FD' should IMO just not happen.
> 
> I think it's fine in cases where you have fairly strong confidence that
> yes will win.
> Let's say that for some reason we really needed a project statement that
> the GPL was a DFSG-free license.
> I think yes|FD would be fine.
> Or for an example that actually happened, we needed a GR to replace
> chairman with chair in the constitution.
> In that case, I think yes|FD is fine.

I see your use case, but I still think that even on such a topic there could be
someone who thinks that the topic - for whatever reason - shouldn't be
discussed at all. Why should they vote FD?

NB: This applies in a way to the origin of the ongoing GR. For me the topic
like it was brought into Debian doesn't belong to our responsibilities. How
would we behave e.g. if someone from the ouside told us how we would have to
elect our DPL?
 
> Because if somehow FD wins, it's going to be a surprise.

May be. But expectations or assumptions shouldn't be the base for ballot
options.

> I do agree that when we can articulate it, a terminal response like "do
> nothing," is worth having on the ballot *if five people actually support
> that*.
> 
> In the case of the current GR, I think we do have a wide range of ballot
> options.

I almost agree, see below.

> I'm reasonably sure that if FD wins it'll be because there's a
> split--people would rather have the question remain open than see their
> side lose, but no side can get a majority.
> 
> I'm not sure that you can capture an option other than FD in such a
> situation.
> "do nothing," is not actually the same as leave the question unresolved.

You are pointing here to a completely valid and meaningful option that is in no
way covered by, yet even controversial to FD. I think that 'None of the
above' comes quite near to 'do nothing, leave the question unresolved', but it
would be indeed better to have it explicitely on the ballot.

With the use cases of GRs coming to my mind (I certainly forgot some) I would
consider as useful to have the following standard options on each ballot:

[... other options ... ]

[ ] Further discussion
[ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
[ ] None of the above


While I agree that we will never be able to put all options in every detail on
the ballots the basic choices above would remove a lot of stress and
uncertainty in the interpretation of FD.


-- 

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

Re: Willingness to share a position statement?

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 4/3/21 03:26, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:

On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:

Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical
idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable
fuckup in the end.

I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a
working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be
leaders in such regimes.

I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway.

What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre.
You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not confirming your
point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not work (and could not work
even in theory) - that's why it should be "cancelled".
Free speech is a beautiful working practice but it is in the way of terrible
ideas and that's why they want to "cancel" free speech.

I have hard time to take people seriously if they don't read. You seem 
to be conflating communism (ideology) and communist party.


The two don't tend to be really connected.

Communism is a stateless society, living on self-governance to secure 
and protect basic human needs such as universal healthcare, education 
and equal pay. In same vein as anarchism but I assume anarchy for you is 
"chaos, trashing the stores etc".


So, Pierre-Elliot was correct when he said that communism is a beautiful 
theoretical idea.


Z


OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 4/3/21 00:44, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> I sincerely think debian-vote should be read-only for non-DDs 
because this person is not a DD (afaict) and is just polluting our 
list with such non-sense.



There are non-DD people who maintain more packages and with higher 
total popcon than DDs, but aren't DD because didn't bother to jump 
through all the several hoops to become a DD.
You just cemented my point even further. If you didn't want to jump 
those "hoops", you can't anyway vote in Debian, so why would you have 
ability to produce noise on the list for which you didn't care enough to 
become DD?



If you do not want DMs, make a proposal and vote to kick all the DMs 
out from Debian. If it passes then be ready to adopt a few hundreds of 
packages or see debian crash and burn.
Debian was fine with couple of developers and few hundred packages, 
Debian is fine with 1000+ DDs and couple of hundred DMs. It is not going 
ever to crash and burn but I wouldn't mind, that people who have easier 
time to defend sexist than they have to defend women from sexist, leave 
the project.


Z


OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 4/3/21 01:52, Craig Sanders wrote:

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 09:07:15PM +0200, Zlatan Todoric wrote:

Yes, lets use that I am not native English speaker and drown the
conversation with some pointless pedantic approaches now and bunch of words.

Oh, FFS!  I was giving you a face-saving excuse for your ignorance, not using
it against you.
On the contrary, it is your ignorance to assume that someone doesn't 
know about the recent US usage of witch-hunt term against communist. You 
see, in a real witch-hunting, as in the one used against communist as in 
Trump using it against journalist - all 3 were not correct. Women were 
not bad actors (Catholic church was), communist were not bad actors (at 
least not even remotely close to the US government) and journalist are 
not bad actors (at least most of them with regards to Trump are not).




While I am not English native, I am Serbian native and we have a saying for
this:

Претакање из шупљег у празно.

Which would mean something like "you say a lot but actually nothing".

we have a saying in English, "You can't teach someone who refuses to learn".
Which means exactly what it says.

And it applies to you, no matter how much I try to help you.

Z


OpenPGP_0x2E5C20BB37933BFD.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
> 
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
> 
> 
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> 
> 

The discussion period is over, no new options will be added.


Kurt