Re: General Resolution: Change the resolution process: results
On Mon, 2022-01-31 at 19:42 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > It's understandable that there is no motivation to choose between two very > long and complicated (and similar but maybe not?) changes. > True, also (like in my case) I forced myself to find the time to read trough it and understand it somewhere in the middle of the night to be able to vote at all. Yes, I think voting is important! So in general if there are such big and non-obvious changes to documents, I think the best option would be to have (require?) a side by side diff as PDF or in some other readable format available. In this case the old document and the two propose changes could have been displayed side by side on a few landscape pages. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: General Resolution: Change the resolution process: results
Hi, > The details of the results are available at: > https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003 I think its a bit sad that even in Debian the motivation to vote seems to be pretty low. I'm wondering if there is anything we can do to motivate more people to vote. Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
On 2021-04-20 18:12, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the case with voting systems. Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of options I care about, and the others are just equally bad choices imho? I feel like we're sort of belaboring a point. If someone voted 1--- does it really seem plausible that they actually thought Option 2 was exactly as bad as Option 5? So if Option 1 were removed from the table, and they personally would pick which remaining option would be chosen, they'd be just as happy with any of Options 2-8? Basically my vote was like 12--- with 2 being FD, but 1- would also have been fine for me, although I wanted to have FD higher than the other options in this case. So if 1 would have been removed, I'd most likely have voted 2--, with --- also being an option Which is also even in democratic/political voting systems something you can express with your vote (at least in Germany). I did not want to spend time on figuring out if voting --- in our voting system is the same as not voting at all, but in political votes it actually makes a difference. Also I think voting "I don't care about the outcome, all is fine for me" is better than not voting at all, even in Debian. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
On 2021-04-20 16:12, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of perceived differences and because FD plays a special role. But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit counterintuitive. Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise. A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked. There eare two options: - people don't understand how it works - people understand how it works, and not ranking options is what they want - because it actually ranks these options equally low. The announcement mails state: Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. So - not ranking options is an way to save time. I've written a bunch of 8 instead, but the result is the same. Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of options I care about, and the others are just equally bad choices imho? -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
On 2021-04-20 12:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led to fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a higher likelihood that Debian would have decided to make a (more well-written) statement instead of the current outcome of not making a statement. On th other hand this leads to even more discussion, more flame-wars and maybe some other ballots that come in in a short time before the voting peropd starts - which might have the same issues you've just described. But without a defined time on when a vote starts, the discussion will never end. No idea on how to fix that, though. Personally I think having fixed and known dates is still the best option. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
On 2021-04-18 23:18, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7 and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any reason for someone to rank them very differently. Just because two votes are semantically equivalent it doesn't mean that people rate them equally. Our voting system luckily allows similar options, so you can decide based on wordings and maybe even the feeling you have when you read the text. Imagine we'd have a GR over the pantone colours of the Debian logo. - PANTONE Rubine Red 2X CVC - PANTONE Strong Red C - PANTONE Rubine Red C - PANTONE 199 C (from https://wiki.debian.org/DebianLogo) Basically all options are red, actually very similar red colours. If you see one colour alone, you'd be completely happy with it. If you are actually able to compare them, you might notice that one is a bit more pink and you hate pink and the other one doesn't fit to the stickers on you laptop. So it makes a lot of sense to be able to decide on such minor differences. You might even hate pink so much, that you'd rate that option below FD. I've done the same in GRs in the past: ranked basically equal options completely different due to their wordings. Its a good thing that you can do that in Debian, and imho it makes a lot of sense to allow to choose on such minor differences. The voting system works as designed, even if some people don't understand the outcome or are not happy with it. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 20:30 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > > But from a Press Release point of view, it would be pretty darn > awkward to say "The Debian Project has voted and chosen OPTION ALPHA. > It is true that a majority of the voters actually preferred OPTION > BETA to OPTION ALPHA. But don't worry about that, because technical stuff involving graph theory and seemingly-irrelevant > options gamma and delta>." Then don't say that. We have a defined method of voting, and if people don't like the results: there are procedures to change the voting method, the constitution and other things. After that you could even start a new GR. Complaining about the voting system because you don't like the outcome or because you could announce the outcome in an awkward way is not helpful. There are awkward voting systems all over the world (ever voted for the US president? or in Germany?), so Debian is not special. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Sun, 2021-04-04 at 16:37 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > > certain agenda on this list. > > > Welcome to Debian. > > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > > free speech is not always fun. > > People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian > Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the > debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among > voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted > on. There are lots of active people in Debian who do not have voting right, but at least I for my part want to hear their opinion if they want to share it. And it would be a shame if those opinions would not be heard. > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > bullshit in our mailboxes. Do you have any statistics on that? Personally I don't mind to ignore some trolls, but if it bothers people too much, I also wouldn't mind if somebody would implement a filter that only accepts mails from active contributors. Although I guess that even discusing what the requirements for such an active contributor are, will take more time than ignoring some trolls once a year. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: opinion on Choice 1
On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > certain agenda on this list. Welcome to Debian. People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but free speech is not always fun. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations
Hi Adam, On 12/1/19 12:24 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > * there's a lot of use cases where systemd fails[1]. This makes it unfit > for being the sole init+rc of an universal operating system. I assume you've opened bugs for all those cases? If I understand the problems you're mentioning right, they are - either the same issue with init. For example: cron - init will kill it at some point, same like systemd. Just that if you'd be using systemd timers, you could avoid all these issues. - or a configuration or admin fail (fs/mount issues...) > * patches fixing non-systemd regressions are routinely ignored[2] Not having non-systemd init systems would fix this. > * changes I view as done with spite, which bring no or negligible benefit to > systemd yet large detriment to other rc systems[3] same here, get rid of init and imprve systemd instead of wasting people's time in maintaining several init systems. Or wasting other peole's time as you don't test your service files... > On the other hand, you cannot require contributors to implement something > they don't care about nor have required hardware/etc for. yes, we can. We have various architectures people don't have at home and a policy that enforces things people might not like. Nothing unusual here. That is the way how all bigger projects work - live with them or choose a different place to work at. Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Question Under Proposal D: Compile Time Option
On 11/30/19 8:58 AM, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > I think the right fix would be to compile the package twice as "foo" > (for the systemd version) and "foo-non-systemd". > > Another option would be to ship both versions in package "foo" and > decide at runtime which one to run, if technically feasible. > > My understanding of D.7 is that, If someone provides a patch that > implements either of this in a maintainable fashion, this patch should > be accepted. I'm wondering what the security team says to this approach. Who is actually going to review these changes, given the fact that most of the features in systemd that need patches in packages are somehow security relevant. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations
Hi, > X< > Title: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple > implementations ... so how does this help the project? We are all wasting lots of time in discussing policy and if we want to support init and friends and if bugs are RC or not. You are basically saying that this needs to continue. I really hope that people vote this far below FD and I fail to understand why fellow developers actually second this. Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CFV Timing and length of voting period
On 11/26/19 2:47 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > One question. Should I extend the voting period to give people more > time to vote given that holidays are near. I'm not sure it would help > much because I think the primary effect of doing that would be to extend > the voting period into the middle of the holidays. But if people think > it might help and would not be harmful I'm happy to do so. yes, please do so. Also please motivate people to go voting on d-d-a. I think this is a way too important question to miss votes from those who are on holidays or don't have their gpg key available in that week. Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposed amendment to Proposal D
On 11/24/19 7:29 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Ian, > > I'd like to propose an amendment to your proposal D, to strike the sentence: > > We are disappointed that this has had to involve another GR. > > I have not decided yet how I'm going to vote in this GR, but I think that > the above sentence can only weaken support for your proposal by conflating > the question of what our init system policy should be, with meta commentary > on the procedure used to decide that policy. > > I personally find it more difficult to support this proposal because of this > mixing of concerns. Steve is absolutely right here. I'm definitely not disappointed about this GR, so with this sentence I think the only option for me right now is to vote your statement below FD. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
On 11/19/19 9:00 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I agree with Holger that it's probably better to leave the amount of > time undefined, and see what happens on a case by case basis. please let's not find a way to delay the next release forever. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
On 11/15/19 3:06 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > The problem with even your option B is that there is no effective > route for non-systemd systems to "catch up" as you put it. For some systemd Features there is no sane route to implement them for a non-systemd system. Especially all the security features, private directories and so on. They will never catch up as it is technically impossible or an enormous amount of work. So not haveing a route here is perfectly fine. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
On 11/15/19 1:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Choice hartmans3: Focus on systemd for Init System and Other Facilities > > If this option wins I will significantly reduce my involvement in > Debian. I think there are probably other contributors for whom this > is the case. I imagine that there are contributors for whom option 1 > (or Dmitry's option) is similarly awful. I'll definitely orphan some packages when the Option 1 wins. Its just not possible to maintain that init mess anymore for them. But at the end the project decides, and if you don't like the outcome, you can either live with it (see, nobody stops you from maintaining your init scripts, Devuan might still exist so you can run your packages and shipping a systemd unit in Debian is easy!) or decide to leave and work somewhere else. I think it is better to decide this issue and keep working on bugs instead of keep discussing systemd vs init. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
On 2019-11-12 18:56, Russ Allbery wrote: "Alexander E. Patrakov" writes: I think that one choice is missing here. Could you please include something like this, just to see how many people are THAT radical? P.S. myself, I wouldn't vote for this even if I had a vote. Choice 4: systemd without Diversity at all Including options in a GR that no one supports is a waste of everyone's time and mental energy. How do you know that no one supports that? I'd second that and I'm sure there are many more out there who would do the same. Imho all other options are wasted time at the end. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR
On 11/9/19 11:24 PM, Simon Richter wrote: > Yes, that would be my desired outcome: an affirmation that Debian wants to > be "universal". This has been our greatest strength for years. Its a strength that wasted an enormous amount of ressources. See kfreebsd (which was actually really nice!) and Hurd, to name some prominent examples. People should not be forced to waste their time, but also we should not necessarily stop them if they want to do it. For me I think the only useful way would be to maintain all init-scripts in a single package that gets pulled in with sysvinit. Whoever wants to use and maintain it is free to do so. Initscript could actually be installed using dpkg triggers or whatever else works. (And at some time we can still move that package into an external repository....). -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: Iain Lane's proposal
>> Title: debian-private shall remain private >> >> The text of the GR is replaced with the following. >> >> 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of >> debian-private list archives" is repealed. >> 2. There shall be no declassification of any portion of the >> debian-private archives, except in the following circumstances. >> 2a. Participants may declassify their own material. >> 2b. Participants may declassify the material of others where >> consent has explicitly been given by the authors of all of the >> material being declassified. >> 3. Participants are reminded to use -private only when necessary. >> >> ==== > seconded. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
On 07/08/2016 03:27 PM, Margarita Manterola wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > === END GR TEXT === seconded -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
On 07/07/2016 03:37 PM, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === seconded. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GR proposal, Call for Seconds - term limit for the tech-ctte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/01/2014 12:20 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote. For more background information on the development of this proposal, see https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/11/msg00274.html ] I'm hereby formally submitting the GR proposal included below between dashed double lines, and calling for seconds. With respect to past discussions on the -vote mailing list, this is the proposal code-named 2-S; see [1,2] for (the last known versions of) alternative proposals. [1]: https://people.debian.org/~zack/gr-ctte-term-limit/ [2]: http://git.upsilon.cc/?p=text/gr-ctte-term-limit.git;a=tree === The Constitution is amended as follows: --- - --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100 +++ constitution.2-S.txt 2014-11-21 16:56:47.328071287 +0100 @@ -299,8 +299,20 @@ Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per appointment. - 5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may +5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical + Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months. +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. +7. Term limit: + 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member + who has served more than 42 months (3.5 years) and who is one + of the two most senior members is set to expire on December + 31st of that year. + 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior +than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed +at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project +longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more +than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant. 6.3. Procedure --- As a transitional measure, if this GR is passed after January 1st, 2015, then the provision of section §6.2.7.1 is taken to have occurred on January 1st, 2015. === I'd like to thank Anthony Towns for introducing the term limit idea several months ago [3] and for his help in polishing it through several rounds of feedback on the -vote mailing list. [3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/05/threads.html#00054 Cheers. seconded - -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUfhfSAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNfQjMQAJ8rNLdQeSP7WC6SslUQfCUA mh6JlbQmdO8O0q9xpEKwqq7gkKqSWM6r09Dvh0VMHkEYEuo4qeG1C7nL7WyOVKew k/XWM/kZnqOHStxZFgNnOJHzLhQBdnAVd1hnjFF5l/XYgLbOO0t/pyBaDKaFasDq d7QgkAFs47GWGGBTSiXN+6Ny3c3k+C0kj4hbOqSy/Nw2+xDm7bmn3r+zz93iOK6u 86GLBWeQeIjuFRWh/0cUUswTUxT8wzdx52/QFboFd9D2qX4MTVcgwVM2Fx+5Ps2n UBOT5Y63Lc8zf8o44obBFwPyfu/ANFAIpOhLzxlIMxyAdbr+i0zo3/GpuBqvhZcZ tjzQIyQ572WY3MkCbXtvzxKNP8fJRSgEfQE+jJ09GuAvbE6gH1g7S9pmynTxMpy8 Cks1miHO0exZbB737fk7YflPFWeGaHsJ7fl8I9XeP0sen5YR8Vi1sO0l9hSSb/rU s7Yx5I3vlhpHQ0HI05kZnSCQHgIr8wtJO3IimINTJ+pfIjpHLAxdBPEGRvor9GnL CDq4+nfSfxcMP1nigfOs7+O9Z4rnpnYKsSDnDs7XCAUrUREqoeTJ8M+xqc5+3Md4 9RlPx19zkWMgPYcmmg/MiFKtegi4LvRGY0UjagN31lK4CQr24F3+Rs3bdxSpGPNb mh5FB5LgBYPqVJKMyZmB =aqWM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547e17d7.20...@bzed.de
Re: Alternative proposal (+call for seconds): Expire 2-R members every year
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/01/2014 02:37 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: [ Cross post -vote, -project ; M-F-T: to -vote ] Hi, I am hereby formally submitting an alternative proposal, between double-dashed lines below (formally it's an amendment, but I don't expect Stefano to accept it, as we discussed it before). I am also calling for seconds (see below). === The Constitution is amended as follows: --- - --- constitution.txt.orig 2014-11-17 18:02:53.314945907 +0100 +++ constitution.2-R.txt 2014-11-24 10:24:42.109426386 +0100 @@ -299,8 +299,22 @@ Project Leader may appoint new member(s) until the number of members reaches 6, at intervals of at least one week per appointment. - 5. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may +5. A Developer is not eligible to be (re)appointed to the Technical + Committee if they have been a member within the previous 12 months. +6. If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee. +7. Term limit: + 1. On January 1st of each year the term of any Committee member + who has served more than 54 months (4.5 years) and who is one + of the N most senior members automatically expires. N is + defined as 2-R (if R 2) or 0 (if R = 2). R is the number of + former members of the Technical Committee who have resigned, + or been removed or replaced within the previous 12 months. + 2. A member of the Technical Committee is said to be more senior + than another if they were appointed earlier, or were appointed + at the same time and have been a member of the Debian Project + longer. In the event that a member has been appointed more + than once, only the most recent appointment is relevant. 6.3. Procedure --- === Rationale - First, I think that there is wide agreement that a more regular turn-over among TC members would be a good thing. And both Stefano's and this proposal aim at addressing this, by ensuring that at least 2 members of the TC are replaced every year. However, too much turn-over, with more than 2 replacements at one point of time, might have negative effects too. The TC might be temporarily weakened by having more young members; replacing more than two members at one point will cause less replacements later; it increases the difficulty of finding new members. The recent situation, with three TC members resigning, should not be treated as exceptional in the context of this resolution. If it were to happen again, I don't think that we should add one or two automatic expirations to the three resignations. This proposal differs from the original proposal by counting all resignations and removals as part of the desirable 2 per year replacement rate, so that the total number of replacements does not exceed two if only one or two younger members decide to resign. This version of the proposal could even result in an internal TC discussion: OK, the Project wants two members to be replaced. Are there members that feel like resigning now? Or should we just fallback to the default of expiring the two most senior members?. I think that such a discussion would be a healthy way for each TC member to evaluate its status. The orignal proposal could have the detrimental effect of pushing inactive/demotivated members to stay on the TC until their expiration, to avoid causing additional churn. Note that there are a few examples to compare the behaviour of the 2-S and 2-R proposals in 20141126142529.ga31...@xanadu.blop.info. Calling for seconds --- The DPL can propose general resolutions or GR amendments without seeking seconds. I initially wanted to waive that right, to only have this option on the ballot if there's sufficient interest from others, but the Secretary declined (in 20141124232153.ga17...@roeckx.be). I am therefore seeking seconds, and will withdraw this alternative proposal if it does not reach the required number of seconds by December 10th. Thanks -- I would like to thank Stefano for organizing the discussion around this GR, and preparing the various versions of the resolution and amendments. Lucas seconded - -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUfhgHAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNfdoIP/i0CLWgPvVVCGF7VNTjlNQJi +GAau08SMP81GjE4gkj7ZHVhxpNDfFwj88j1rE3X7VEPqqQjAdj2U3Ugcs5wB3Kp
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Am 07. November 2014 10:34:13 MEZ, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org: I think the above would be a good compromise, although I haven't took the time to properly formalize it yet (so I might have overlooked nasty corner case Cheers. -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/c7a52500-944f-4e6f-93d5-951031e21...@bzed.de
Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
Using a phone to reply is probably not such a good idea :-( Am 07. November 2014 10:34:13 MEZ, schrieb Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org: I think the above would be a good compromise, although I haven't took the time to properly formalize it yet (so I might have overlooked nasty corner cases). Do you think you will be able to formalize it soon-ish? I think that bringing such a change in place is necessary, better sooner than later. Thanks, Bernd Cheers. -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/6488cf07-bf03-4afe-ae6e-b9f05ea0a...@bzed.de
Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 01/27/2014 08:39 PM, Guillem Jover wrote: This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for sponsors now. please stop wasting people's time and let the TC do their work instead. Thanks. - -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJS5sJhAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNfewsP/jxx7hOGao19Ol2Nn6S7lPf7 cWaOtztdKA9hl6hWzOQV0zjUetfGIepMwx44IK1XoXB1bq5aDwoeDln+Wiedwkgf 4XFWdE9pbZWmzS28obYnJeddF/S/aqKPX7L+aO9cV66Mg+I4GmZm1THMUPce0LfM ISA3Qge8MrhYijbmJ/SlaIMXJimdbYG3RXJE9BeCn3Nld7flSsnWGXRvoidt7pVV FrnH18mQrmYLibi13xQOY2i+zPH7Z/BV+xHsRXv+0hA50uhclamNoRW8Lszv3RjB GAsPO/H3XWN8qgKEkqRRCT6kbXbfTw2ezUOKPktu9tOF2qLmjzN8ri6mKg6lLCah DdeqEg5i+JsvSlywo/nyHNsiPyzP8mvMdb+C3TNMLYOY1xXZ7OWMN42dbsz66iEd dtTbmnoRSxhrPRZgqJgoPAvf/qkVj2WMciKEmN/qIPzlQcb4PJvthYIv9EYcdRTL cFg/sYC0ygEgwlXb45tnk6v5wm5PwGfiysDLZlT9ZL8zagIrtGrO4Q1kDwuNzisQ Xh1gQdoi7PByXJjb3c/picpvsih545/J+ziCmGM+2boCpeEudplxBc9txbsvPmlQ AkApsgS7Z+JP0kXNkOFr2qukZFtlZ1RUNC0KwopBJ7rXCeI0Jfibq1xl5FhteaDN /ZTdY2B1QsKm6NcWzbqL =Fvvl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e6c266.8060...@bzed.de
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On 09/15/2010 02:16 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the people in charge to restrict upload capacities of developers who do not need them (do-o-cracy), while at the same time it would make the GR more neutral, focusing it on acceptance of new members, without suggesting restriction and therefore difference of status. I don't think we should open a second way to get upload rights to the archive, so I would *not* want to remove that part. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c91265a.5030...@bzed.de
Re: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 09/14/2010 10:53 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: --- The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions, including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity for becoming Debian project members. The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers without upload rights to the Debian archive. These new developers shall be recognized as Debian Contributors (DC). * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept Debian Contributors. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable Debian Contributors to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. --- Seconded! - -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMj4YrAAoJEOs2Fxpv+UNf1qUP/2EI8m+A4kfzQj0WDk3hWpFn vdXukhev7G2I6RtaJB/7lQAbkaJwUKh2qdB2Z0E7UbUDWCcpK5BN7Eq7aFHwPiic 0hsXqqFLBbkrrp6fNbq5e+MEVTCXYqJsuJju0xQZiWZVZVfa98XHg0u+QViq2fad rs03zg/LUB8t1CsEQRB/0cv3re5V6MSRGQsElOWLqgp2WZOALl3d4pAIt6IJLmkE 99V/ZwlBPgAhw7PQXx6v0XWPhjkFEJ3jGO9FC1tp7QRZ4+LBCtqhSU2obl7qdEb+ nYRjicWlDLsKIoCOnIQnJd9j5/NwHnVXQbE3rFUYvRiWpuUHV4GiabhDs3UFzdzN S3/Y6S/leYqe45OgA/U+3/LD//Zte9W7WhldXpYSErTqBI1+7VZ2N2CsrbKtsZ15 UKBNo9fMfR1StGX6Gi3Ed8VdtO4P+m5wS7o7beTyzrXq5pzDWQdw8o1SqlcPASjx iXq7LluDuqXCD8gQT+eRrPOsIhHLzisGdc6lOvYNOgWkLiN9oD/Xx8vnQXpNvEwS xS4OaD0/RsZL6z6CL0H8qBZnKQe44klR/TkOfZutiIOjW5Ke6wRGcUHzCP4sOfRc H6u7xhrJKKEYiWJbgUeU0bzF2HV39gbCQhk+cvfuqRUDXPIhqTGBhGqgonRvyhHb 1HytnO8YbGIdAU5iMmdA =PWu7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c8f8631.9020...@bzed.de
Re: Standardization, large scale changes, innovations
Manoj Srivastava wrote: Now when we upgrade our policies and/or infrastructures, like what was recently proposed for sha1sums instead, this requires manual updating of all our packages for no good reason. That would be the naive way to implement things. And yes, that would be sillly. I just update code in one place, test it, and then run a script that does a git pull for all my packages. The next time I build the package, it will pull in the change. Exactly there is the problem. If you'd use dh_md5sums, a binNMU would be all that is needed to update your packages (yes, I know that is not yet possible for arch:all, but I guess the time will come...). In your case we have to wait until you've decided to upload all of your packages... -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bb37e2c.5080...@bzed.de
Re: Question about membership.
Charles Plessy wrote: If I am elected DPL, I will re-open the discussion and lead them in a way that maximises everybody's contribution, for instance by making pauses if necessary, and by posting neutral summaries. After the discussion reaches conclusion, I will initiate a GR. When did you talk with DAM and the NM FrontDesk people about such things? Do you think it is the DPL's job to initiate GRs to change such procedures? Is a GR necessary at all or how are such things decided in Debian? When would you need a GR? -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bacb164.5010...@bzed.de
Re: Question about membership.
Hi Charles, thanks for you long answer. But unfortunately I feel like a journalist now, instead of getting a short *answer* to my questions, I got a looong talk around them. So here are they again, in a very simplified form: * Did you or do you plan to talk to DAM/Frontdesk about membership changes? * Do you need to come up with a GR to change membership procedures, or is there a different way? Thanks, Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bad2a3c.5070...@bzed.de
Re: Q for the Candidates: How many users?
Anthony Towns wrote: * www.debian.org/social_contract says Debian's priorities are our users and free software, * popcon.debian.org currently reports 91,523 submissions, * popcon.ubuntu.com currently reports 1,493,440 submissions, and * that this is something of a trick question, That results in a different question for me: Does Ubuntu enforce the usage of pocon, and should Debian do so, too? -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba7703b.8000...@bzed.de
Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
Charles Plessy wrote: 2) I think that the Debian operating system is defined by the interaction of its binary version and the source files necessary to use, study, modifiy and redistribute it. Non-DFSG-free files that happen to be codistributed with the source of the Debian operating system but have no function at all are not part of the system, and I would like maintainers to be allowed to keep these files in the original upstream material if it simplifies their work. Would that include files which we are not allowed to distribute (for whatever reason)? Do you think that the number of packages where the source had to be repackages is high enough to warrant a change of the DFSG? Thanks and cheers, Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba615d8.5030...@bzed.de
Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
Hi all, with 20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org Charles Plessy came up with a draft GR Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.. I'd like to know from Charles Plessy if the draft from January still reflect his current opinion or if his mind changed. From the other candidates I'd like to know their opinion and plans (if there are any) about license/copyright requirements in Debian. Thanks, Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Amendment: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi, and here is the promised amendment which will require a maximum of floor(Q) developers to second a GR. PROPOSAL START General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian Project. Yet, in a project the size of Debian, the current requirements to initiate one are too small. Therefore the Debian project resolves that a) The constitution gets changed to not require K developers to sponsor a resolution, but floor(Q). [see §4.2(1)] b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)], as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q) developers to sponsor the resolution. c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)] (Numbers in brackets are references to sections in the constitution). PROPOSAL END Practical changes: Taking the definitions of the latest GR we had, Current Developer Count = 1018 Q ( sqrt(#devel) / 2 ) = 15.9530561335438 K min(5, Q ) = 5 Quorum (3 x Q ) = 47.8591684006314 this will mean that future GRs would need 15 other people to support your idea. Seconded. - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAknFFbsACgkQBnqtBMk7/3lbkwCfQeX4xVMe+qDmGDMt5W9wyRrj SLYAn0AhYp1odc/zA57n1yHudTTs1wWI =WVtl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Adeodato Simó wrote: * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan wrote: OTOH, if you just tell me to go elsewhere, I'm sorry but I don't want to look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles. The only one who works on destroying the project at the moment is *you*. Please don't continue until somebody asks for a vote to remove your from all lists or the whole project, I'm sure enough people would second that. Better go and fix your packages, that would be something useful you could help the project with. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Manoj Srivastava wrote: The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order to get it considered separately at a later time? They only need to do so to prevent it from being on the current ballot. I think it would be a pity of any of the 6 options is withdrawn, since any of them could lend us relief from the current mess wrt Lenny release. Why? The option was proposed as GR on it's own and it was seconded this way. Even if I can see where you're coming from in merging it into the current GR, that's not what was asked for. Do we now need a GR to tell the secretary that a proposed and seconded GR should not be merged into other GRs? -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
Robert Millan wrote: On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion. Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attacks, but I choose to read anyway out of responsibility. If you're sick of personal attacks, stop this bullshit and spend your time on something useful. Like fixing RC bugs so Lenny can be released SOON. You're wasting a lot of people's time here, time which could be spent on making Lenny the best release ever. The only thing you're doing is to make Lenny the release with the longest freeze time ever. and I'll support the RM in their difficult job…) So do I. If the project grants them an exception to release Lenny (like we did for Sarge and Etch), I'll support that too. To start the same bullshit again for the next release, a few days before the release? *sigh* Bernd ... who will look for a different distribution to spend his time on, if Robert's proposals will pass the GR. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution: | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded into | hardware components in order to make the component function properly. | It is not code that is run on the host CPU. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as so-called blobs, | with no source or further documentation that lets us learn how it works | or interacts with the hardware in question. By excluding such firmware | from Debian we exclude users that require such devices from installing | our operating system, or make it unnecessarily hard for them. | | Therefore the Debian project resolves that | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not | require it, | b) we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from | components of our operating system, and | c) such firmware can and should be part of our official installation media. seconded. - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkeG+wACgkQBnqtBMk7/3mDsQCfTWQMHrHVxgf1Rvi07zQh9tha arEAn00HIZm6T4KS+uVHqTTZFewcYt2l =44sg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on firmware (possible proposal)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'd second the proposal as quoted below. | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not designed to be | run on the host CPU. Often this firmware is already required at install time | in order to use network or storage devices. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as BLOBs, with no source or | further documentation that lets us learn how it works or interacts with the | hardware in question. By excluding such firmware from Debian we exclude | users that require such devices from installing our operating system, or | make it unnecessarily hard for them. | | Therefore the Debian project resolves that | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not | require it, | b) we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from | components of our operating system, and | c) such firmware can and should be part of our official installation media. Cheers, Bernd - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkct5kACgkQBnqtBMk7/3kl4QCcCxdv1R8GTrehUF5Q3R6rDNOC jJcAn30u09aAqYBnyMMSMI0ZbS/qzXW5 =1coL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I second Manoj's proposal as quoted below. Cheers, Bernd ,[ Proposal 5: allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware | issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the | last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the | kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues | have not yet been addressed; | | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the | progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian | relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge | as of 1 November 2008); | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the | firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies | with the DFSG. ` This is just proposal 2 + the last clause of item 4. I am formally proposing this as an amendment, either to replace proposal 2; or as a formal alternative in its own right, and I am asking for seconds. manoj - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkazTwACgkQBnqtBMk7/3nUVgCgj1TmvZfJkACXAwfwxq3l4RK2 Xi0Ani1WW6PqnL7vNojAdfSAyAzrFKMP =gZqH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: new proposal
Hi, | Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | | | I think you've missed to count [EMAIL PROTECTED] here. Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andreas Barth schrieb: In case any of the proposals get enough seconds, I would propose then: | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade them | against each other. However during getting an release out of the door, | decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable release of the high | quality Debian is known for, release more or less on time, and to | minimize the usage of problematic software. We acknoledge that there | is more than just one minefield our core developers and the release team | are working at. | | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making | case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary | authorize these decisions. Should you need to propose this, consider it seconded by me. And by me. Should you do a s/acknoledge/acknowledge/ and/or s/therefor/therefore/ I'll still second it. Me too. - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkPZ4cACgkQBnqtBMk7/3kw3wCggag1qBhjXV+0IiFy/bJclaTJ 3I4AnAhubtiVJ6amrhsP0MaIN+UbA4HS =cZif -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible amendment for Debian Contributors concept
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I really dislike the negative tone of the original proposed resolution, Me too. Unfortunately this tone seems to be normal in Debian these days, which is a shame. so I am thinking of proposing this as an alternative option. The text I'm thinking about is currently this: | The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project are | not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are not | provided by the project with as much help as might be possible, useful | or required. | . | We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve | contributors more closely with the project so that they can get both | recognition and the necessary tools to do their work. | . | We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce | mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support of a large | part of our community. We invite the DAM to further develop his ideas | in close coordination with other members of the project, and to present | a new and improved proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future, | at least two weeks prior to any planned implementation. This is not a call for seconds yet, but a request for comments. So, any changes that should be made before it gets proposed, if it will? I'd second it as it is. Cheers, Bernd - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkG7noACgkQBnqtBMk7/3mTzACfQbIH/xPAInoLyaLcVQtxRF37 IbQAn0EuVSWktyhN0wzPEpFy0V7pFMBo =6nFL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice --- The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves, applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to send a box of chocolates to Ben. --- seconded. 1. For me, Debian is non-fun at the moment not because of the lack of great people but because of an excess of people that spoil my Debian experience. I am not quite ready to quit yet, but every day and every second on Robert's resolution help. I have to second that, too, unfortunately. Robert obviously has too much free time. Somebody please teach him that there're open RC bugs out there which need to be fixed. But probably he never looked into the bugs of the packages he maintains. Best regards, Bernd - -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkHgmAACgkQBnqtBMk7/3nlsACdHZ3WkDQBWaKvVb4POktVWJsn sYAAoJg2FbPqYP9KdaO252dPPQvJvAiC =JS7k -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical committee resolution
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ma, 2008-03-10 at 13:48 +1100, Anthony Towns wrote: The idea is to encourage DPLs to appoint two new members during their term, so we get new blood in the committee, Would it then be better to limit the term of tech-ctte members to, say, two years? Or three years? With the option that they may be re-appointed/elected/selected/whatever immediately, of course. This would force the consideration of new blood rather than making it dependent on the whim of the DPL. That would be my preferred way, too. Also imho they should be elected by several people to make sure not the same people^Wthe DPL's friends get into the ctte only. dam + ftp-masters + fd + rms + dpl are probably a good group to elect members of the tech-ctte. - -- Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bzed.de/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH1e25BnqtBMk7/3kRApCfAJ9zTl6l649cSUGtOCzdBKyCrteTCwCgpV4o TtQYeJXzWzdn5ThJbeoepLg= =/OZl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
