Re: Question to all candidates: what to do with the Debian money, shall we invest in hardware and cloud?
ion:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=VTz2pGh3ePjzKg8f6nlMMQkZnVWZwR7w1LvBlybjmds=; b=wx+TWr0N91j8CZo7WkGIeiWNVY GYH06dtjWpZVo6Xh5ySNDRtSIn48jzyAczVKfIU9d1NTsDU2DoyELgf5NQCA==; Received: from gateway31.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.143.40]) by letbox-vps.us-core.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mj4Kk-0045UI-7o for felix.lech...@lease-up.com; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:53:02 -0700 Received: from cm14.websitewelcome.com (cm14.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.7]) by gateway31.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA877FD0FF for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 13:52:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from gator3123.hostgator.com ([50.87.144.158]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id j4KSmfF66IWzGj4KSmj2RG; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 13:52:44 -0500 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 Received: from [45.222.31.109] (port=58398 helo=[10.10.8.88]) by gator3123.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mj4KR-001bRA-Mu for felix.lech...@lease-up.com; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 13:52:44 -0500 Message-ID: <36ca908f-efcd-9465-b40e-97d928c31...@debian.org> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 20:52:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1 Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, Dev boards, laptops, upcoming Lenovo discounts and more... Content-Language: en-US To: Felix Lechner References: From: Jonathan Carter Organization: Debian In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3123.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lease-up.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - debian.org X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 45.222.31.109 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1mj4KR-001bRA-Mu X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([10.10.8.88]) [45.222.31.109]:58398 X-Source-Auth: jonat...@bluemosh.com X-Email-Count: 1 X-Source-Cap: Ymx1ZW1vc2g7Ymx1ZW1vc2g7Z2F0b3IzMTIzLmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20= X-Local-Domain: no Hi Felix On 2021/11/03 16:45, Felix Lechner wrote: > For over a year, I contemplated writing this request. As part of my > contributions to Debian I operate the website lintian.d.o. Untarring > and scanning the archive uses lots of resources. The service is > heavily disk-bound. > > It would help to upgrade one of my machines to an NVMe SSD. The > machine also needs more memory (currently 24 GB). I would not normally > make the upgrades. Would the project please help out with the proposed > purchase? > > The details in the amount of approximately US$217 are below. Thanks! Can you remind me where/how this is currently hosted? Didn't you sort out the remaining issues with DAM and have it hosted there? -Jonathan
Re: Question to all candidates: GDPR compliance review
Hi Adrian, On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 1:24 PM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The discussion starting in [1] is about privacy in Debian with a focus > on the GDPR of the European Union. > > There seems to be a general agreement that privacy in Debian falls > short of the legal minimum requirements at least in the EU. > > Even the exact scope of the problem is not clear. > > Question to all candidates: > > If elected, will you ask our Data Protection team and our GDPR lawyer to > jointly do a review of all handling of personal data in Debian regarding > GDPR compliance, and make the results of the review available to all > developers? Yes. The release of any findings may be redacted, or may be a summary. Recipients may be required to sign a confidentiality agreement coupled with an indemnity in the event of a breach, and a release of claims, or both. In all cases, I reserve the right to act on the advice of counsel—but with an explanation to you. I will treat you the same way that I would wish to be treated if our roles were reversed. I am committed to transparency when possible. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
Hi, On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 3:33 AM Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > nontechnical statements. "Life is like a flute. It may have many holes and emptiness but if you work on it carefully, it can play magical melodies." First comment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5qhNRmMilI Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Tiago, On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:09 AM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this > thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify > how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? > > Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at > the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL > campaign period in which you are both candidates? > > In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be > quickly approved. Look, the discussion with Richard was about the process for disbursements. I like the idea of committees that are on schedule and open to the public. Despite the collateral damage Jonathan suffered for the missing reimbursement (which people in power have to endure) I did not intend to embarrass him, yet that's where we are taking this thread. Jonathan is a busy guy. In fact, he is so busy he too would benefit if other folks handled the disbursements. It would be a win-win for everyone. My messages may also have gotten stuck in Jonathan's spam filter. It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. Either way, you challenged me for the true record. Below, you will find the exchange you are interested in. I redacted both of Jonathan's responses in case he wrote them. As you can see, I wrote a lot in private, but was ineffective. Similar to my other responses, I am committed to transparency when possible. For context you will need to know that my internal hindrances with operating lintian.d.o—which we resurrected after years of spotty service—did not start (or end) with the misplaced reimbursement. In RT#8464 from November 2020, you will find a partial record of the dispute. (The ticket contains one of the few irate emails I have written in Debian; it may have contributed to my DAM warning.) To this day, there has been nothing but obstruction. In my mind, the missing reimbursement simply made that point one more time. Jonathan witnessed some of my issues, but he did not cause them. In Debian, too much power is held away from the public eye. We have Setec Astronomy. Hence my open and public committees. Thanks for supporting my reimbursement request! Kind regards, Felix Lechner -- Forwarded message - From: Felix Lechner Date: Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Jonathan Carter Hi Jonathan, On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > [excerpt of posting to debian-private] For over a year, I contemplated writing this request. As part of my contributions to Debian I operate the website lintian.d.o. Untarring and scanning the archive uses lots of resources. The service is heavily disk-bound. It would help to upgrade one of my machines to an NVMe SSD. The machine also needs more memory (currently 24 GB). I would not normally make the upgrades. Would the project please help out with the proposed purchase? The details in the amount of approximately US$217 are below. Thanks! Kind regards Felix Lechner * * * SAMSUNG (MZ-V8V1T0B/AM) 980 SSD 1TB, $120 Dual M.2 PCIE Adapter for SATA or PCIE NVMe, $16 Patriot 16GB(2x8GB) Viper III DDR3 1600MHz CL9, $60 Subtotal $196 Sales Tax $21 Total $217 All amounts are in US dollars. The seller is Amazon.com. -- Forwarded message - From: Jonathan Carter Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:57 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Felix Lechner [redacted for privacy] -Jonathan -- Forwarded message - From: Jonathan Carter Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Felix Lechner Hi Felix [redacted for privacy] -Jonathan -- Forwarded message - From: Felix Lechner Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] To: Jonathan Carter Hi Jonathan, On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > [redacted for privacy] The website consists of three parts. There is a web server, which [redacted] hosts presently; a database on my personal VPS; and the machinery that generates the data. Some time ago, [redacted] offered to host the database (part [redacted]). I believe I met all their requirements (most notably, packaging semver [1] for bullseye), but no one has responded to my most recent message from October 4. At this point, I believe I earned the right to suspect that the delay was intended to provoke me into writing another angry letter, but none is coming. It would therefore be fine to proceed with the database. (The website will also work better if DAM kicks me out, as [redacted] suggested.) The database is currently hosted on a VPS with 1 GB of RAM, which is under dimensioned. I already offer reduced services. Having received no response f
Re: Question to all candidates: how is Debian doing?
Hi Ted, On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:39 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > I'll note that you spent a lot of time about how the council would > appoint a chair and vice-chair, create bylaws, meet monthly, etc. > > However you didn't really answer the question regarding what the > authorities that the Strategy Council would have. You've said that > the strategy council would expand on your answers that were given in > the top of this thread --- but then what? > > If the Strategy Council were to decide that a strategy might be, say, > "a mouse should put a bell on the cat", how would that strategy be > carried out? Debian is a volunteer organization some have said, > "do-ocracy". So I'm not sure what you, as the DPL, would do with the > conclusions that might be made by such a Strategy Council? In my reading of Lucas's original questions, he merely probed the thinking of the candidates. Lucas did not express a concern that any of us would fail for lack of authority. My responses were meant to answer his questions. At the same time, I will answer your questions as well. The idea behind the committees is to establish, by experiment, that two or more heads think better together than one alone. Large parts of the project still operate according to the "strong maintainer" model, so that's a significant paradigm shift. The committees provide a soft counterweight that cares about the project as a whole. A better group spirit alone will be a noticeable advance for Debian. As to your specific concern about how strategic conclusions might be used, a project leader can benefit from the advice in many ways. For example, I would make sure that my own actions work for us in the long term, and not against us. As a passionate optimist, I may also need an occasional reality check from our best and brightest. Since everything is public, all members can do the same. Perhaps most significantly, I hope to present the membership with a wide range of novel and creative proposals. The findings of a Strategy Council could create a sense of urgency—a rare sentiment in Debian—to embrace new ideas. In short, the Strategy Council will help us, as a group, to get unstuck in many ways. That's how we will get stuff done. Thank you for your challenging question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Results for Voting secrecy
Hi Russ, On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 2:29 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > I do not believe you have enough information to make this assertion with > complete confidence. That is correct, and I will at this point wait until affected parties, if any, speak up. Meanwhile, the uncertainty you and I both suffer would be resolved by a simple redo of the vote with a ballot that carries the appropriate warning. That is all I asked for. > Regardless, it doesn't matter procedurally. The remedy that you're asking > for doesn't exist in the constitution. I suppose you and Kurt are saying that the denominator in the majority calculation is so exactly described that there is no room to read any protective spirit into the language of the constitution. > This is an absurd escalation when you have no procedural basis for what > you're demanding, and it's quite concerning coming from someone who is > currently standing for DPL. It's also pointless; anyone else who replaces > the Project Secretary will have to do the same thing. The discretion > you're asking for simply does not exist in the constitution. Well, I see it the other way around. As the only elected office in Debian, the project leader is the sole respondent to the public. Everyone else is appointed (and not elected). No other office is so deeply vested with making sure that the people feel truly represented. As for my qualification for office, I perceive it as the project leader's duty to serve everyone, including any people with whom I disagree. That's all I am doing here. As noted, I am personally in favor of the constitutional change the Secretary is about to certify. And as far as I am concerned, I did not escalate. I really do not believe the project has other appropriate remedies. In any event, I didn't mean to come across as threatening—especially not to Kurt. In the US, procedural objections are always short and direct (because they have to be timely). Compared to the cultural norms in Europe or Asia, I probably should have exercised greater restraint. Sorry, Kurt. In summary, I am fine with the proceedings here as long as no folks opposing secret votes felt cheated today. Let's stop arguing and see if anyone speaks up. Thank you for the valuable background on your interpretation of the constitution! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Results for Voting secrecy
Hi Kurt, On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have > been an option, or people would have voted it equally. People were confused. Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted that option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against changes to the constitution. The constitution is the project's foundational document. Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled to a warning from the Project Secretary. The vote was procedurally defective. > Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared > to the NOTA option. Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent. I do not believe it is possible to reconstruct the electorate's intent solely from the beat matrix. A better approximation, however, would be to also consider the 107 votes who placed Option 3 ahead of Option 2 in the latter's majority test. That would yield 185 / (61 + 107) = 1.1 which is less than the factor of 3 mandated by section 4.1.2 of the constitution. As far as I can see, the result is unconstitutional and thus invalid. > I currently don't see anything wrong with this vote, so I see no reason > to redo it. Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to replace the Project Secretary. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Results for Voting secrecy
Dear Mr. Secretary, As a Second for the winning Option 2, I was personally happy with last night's vote, but I nonetheless object to your certification of these tentative results: > Option 2 defeats Option 3 by ( 142 - 107) = 35 votes. > Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 185 - 61) = 124 votes. Would you please explain why Option 2 defeated NOTA by 124 votes but at the same time defeated Option 3, which was identical to NOTA, by only 35 votes? Did 89 folks vote 3-2-NOTA (or a variation thereof involving Option 1)? If so, did Option 2 pass the majority test only because Option 3 was available separately? I believe the vote should be redone. A repeat without Option 3 is needed so that your certified results can properly reflect the electorate's position with respect to the question posed on the ballot while also honoring our constitutional majority requirement. Thank you! Respectfully, Felix Lechner signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions about Debian derivatives
Hi Paul, On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 8:54 PM Paul Wise wrote: > > Debian's relationship with the various distributions derived from > Debian and approach to existing and new derivatives has had a wide > range of states. Most derivatives recieve indifference from Debian. > There has been animosity from Debian towards some derivatives. We have > welcomed the creation of derivatives. We have welcomed developers from > derivatives into Debian packaging teams. We have encouraged people to > start blends within Debian instead of starting derivatives. > > What do you think of Debian's current relationship with derivatives? > > What would you like to change about our relationships? > > What do you feel Debian's current approach to derivatives is? > > What would you like to change about that approach? > > What is your favourite derivative? > > Would you like to see it merged into Debian? > > Thoughts on identical Debian pure blends vs derivatives? > > Other thoughts welcome, as are thoughts from non-candidates. First off, I am proud that there are a lot of derivatives. Last time I checked, over half of the entries on DistroWatch were based on Debian. [1] "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Meanwhile, it is helpful to look at the individual heritage for each project. Here, I will focus on those that either (1) want to be different or (2) those who cannot achieve in Debian what they would like to accomplish. There is some overlap because Debian is an odd place to get anything done. In the first category, I see many of the desktop alternatives, like "Mint" and "MX". They love their independence. Some lesser known projects like Endless rely entirely on their own brand. I do not think we can do much about them other than learn from their marketing and maybe adopt some of their tools (although some of those world travellers may join us when we find an attractive long-term home for Debian). By the way, I know the desire to be different. As an early Linux user in 1993, I briefly considered starting my own distribution, called "Felix," but then got busy with school and stuck to Slackware. (I switched to Debian in 1996 or so.) In retrospect, I am glad that Ian Murdock (and Deb) got their names on our baby. I am incredibly proud to be a part of Debian today! The second category is populated by projects we know a lot better. Usually, there was some kind of a split. Among those, I count Devuan (initd) and Ubuntu (release cycle). They exist mostly because we can be jerks—although maybe the latter was not so much of an issue for Ubuntu. I used Ubuntu very happily and productively without contributing from 2005 to 2010, but their frequent release cycle was a burden for me. The day I switched back to tracking testing was one of the happiest days in my life. Otherwise, I have limited experience with our derivatives. If it's okay to broaden the scope of your questions for a moment, I love Arch and would like to merge with them (although I have never actually used their operating system). They have great energy, superb documentation, and are a lot younger. On the flip side, Arch would benefit from our technical acumen and our packaging experience. I'd love to see us join forces with them somehow. The pure blends question should really go to the folks on this list who actively maintain derivatives. Are human factors in the way where technical solutions exist? Let's come together! To improve our relationships with all derivatives—you might have guessed it—I would form an Integration Committee (aka as the "come home" committee). As the first member, I would approach Mark Hindley. Finally, I would like to draw some specialty derivatives nearer to Debian, although many are super friendly already. In the embedded space, for example, OpenWrt needs help with their archive. For unreleased builds, one has to reflash their base system when adding packages later. Maybe we can give them a snapshot.openwrt.org with old builds sorted by date. Thank you for a question with great peacemaking potential! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] Sorry, I can't find the reference right now.
Question to all candidates: Code of Conduct and Community Team - how do you feel about them?
but please without violating the
rights of others. (Yes, that includes my goofy letter with the video
from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off.") This message is signed.
In the spirit of transparency that I hope is a theme in my campaign, I
included at the bottom of this message my redacted plea for mercy to the
d-private list. (I received no reply.) It outlines some of my grievances
with our enforcement activity.
If elected, I look forward to working with you, Andy, with the Debian
Account Managers, and with the Community Team to resolve those issues
together. I know you all love Debian, too.
The message below may also help you and everyone else find more answers
to the questions you posed here.
Thank you for asking about a topic that is dear to my heart!
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2022/01/msg0.html
[1] WARNING: offensive, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2022/03/msg00081.html
[4] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct_interpretation
* * *
Hi [Debian Account Manager],
Throughout the process of my DAM warning and the melee that followed,
no one ever asked for my side of the story. This message is intended
to complete the record.
You will also find a request for mercy, at your pleasure.
[excerpt from violation notice omitted]
From my perspective, I sent the apology at the earliest possible time.
I was not contacted by anyone from DAM or the Community Team until
after the warning was issued.
For the time in between, I did not think the word "freak" was an
insult, much less actionable by DAM. Debianites use a lot of
invective, and DAM allows all of it. (Just on this list, I recently
read the words dbag, a--hole, and f--ing without any apparent
consequences.) Upon realizing my error, I immediately wrote a letter
to [the victim], which everyone can see below this message. I sent it
the day I got the warning.
Given the extraordinary leeway you enjoy when doling out warnings, I
am truly terrified by the meager compassion you expend for your fellow
human beings, all while holding high office. For example, you could
have pointed out that my apology was most certainly a product of real
contrition. After your warning, I could no longer evade punishment.
The apology was a free-will offering from my heart.
Similar apologies that DAM considers from people before a warning are
probably not entitled to the same presumption of sincerity.
Aside from a lack of due process, I do not believe I was afforded the
procedural protections for non-native English speakers enshrined in
the Code of Conduct's rule #2. [1] I was twenty years old when I left
my native Germany and transferred to an American university (Harvard)
on an academic scholarship from the German President
("Studienstiftung"). In early schooling, English was my third
language.
From my recollection, the word "Freak" is commonly used untranslated
in German to denote someone who is overly eager, especially around
computers. That meaning is marked as humorous and pejorative in Leo
[2] but not in TFD. [3]
Should DAM have considered my explanation before issuing the warning?
Or, did it not matter because the word "freak" was simply too
egregious a transgression?
Was my behavior truly so vile that it deserved one of the harshest
punishments available to you? How could it, compared to the other
awful words we read so often on Debian channels?
I did not even repeat the word "freak" during the incident, or thereafter.
Is there a way DAM would please consider withdrawing the warning in
light of the new information presented herein?
By the way, the "over-eager" meaning is supported by the record. I
thought [the victim] and a fellow member were ganging up over an old
Lintian research tag that was never shown to the public (except for a
description on the website [4]). There had been a similar but
unrelated interaction a day prior. To make their point as forcefully
as possible—as many in Debian like to do—the other [redacted] later
filed a release-critical bug (wow!) against Lintian. [5] Again, I
resolved the matter on the same day.
Please allow me to briefly thank everyone who sent friendly private
messages during the past month. I received many dozens, but with my
dream of working on Debian in the balance I was too shy to reply.
[The victim] also never responded to my apology. I hope that one day
[pronoun] will forgive me. We had a brief exchange on IRC a few days
ago. Perhaps it was a start.
Thanks to everyone for indulging one more email on this subject.
Debian is like a dream!
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
[1] https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
[2] https://dict.leo.org/german-english/freak
[3] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/freak
[4] [redacted for privacy]
[5] [redacted for privacy]
-- Forwarded message -
From: Felix Lechner
Subject: An apology
Hi [
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard, On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 1:17 PM Richard Laager wrote: > > The disbursements that I've heard about seem to be relatively "small > potatoes" things. Is there some huge wasteful spending occurring that > I've missed? I don't know. As an outside candidate, I received no confidential briefings. SPI's website publishes data that is in monthly aggregate form [1] but I am not sure how to read it. I also looked for consolidated virtual accounts on the Debian Treasurer's website [2] but could not find any. Do the amounts have to be large in order to matter to people? For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on my request. My idea for a Disbursements Committee was thus born by a simple desire for greater accountability (or, at a minimum, a response). Plus, if elected, I could never issue that $217 check to myself. As for your question about "huge wasteful spending," yes, I do worry about Debian's expenditures in light of Jonathan's comment that he is happy to "give a lawyer a lot of money." [3] I have worked with teams of lawyers. They get expensive fast. Either way, the right person to address your question is Jonathan, whom I copied as a courtesy. Jonathan ran on financial transparency platforms in both the 2020 election [4] and again in 2021. [5] For any of your follow-up comments not quoted above, I perceived your opinions to be final. Please allow me to let your voice stand on its own. Thank you for your constructive follow-up questions! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/ [2] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Treasurer [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00137.html [4] https://www.debian.org/vote/2020/platforms/jcc [5] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/jcc
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Jonathan, On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 11:09 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > How would you gauge that, Felix? It's impractical to have a vote every > time a decision is to be made, which is why voters want to know how a > potential DPL would make choices so that they can make an informed > choice on who to vote for. Even if you end up setting up that army of > committees (I can't imagine all the bureaucracy that will come with), > you would still have to make frequent decisions unlikely covered by > those committees. So, again, how would you gauge what project members > perceive as proper? What can I say? Rule by decree is more efficient around the world. I tried to explain my vision for more checks and balances in my response to Richard Laager [1] who asked the question first. I believe that a civic system, however simple, approximates the will of the people to a greater degree. No referendums are needed. Referendums wouldn't solve anything. We are a direct democracy that isn't, because people are too afraid of voting. We should give folks another way to take charge. As to the level of bureaucracy, the collective process we use presently is probably even less efficient. A distributed system, on the other hand, would reduce the reading burden on the mailing lists. Many problems would be handled by experienced committee members, who can make decisions for the project at set times but also easily revisit them. Right now, we can hardly do either. Please allow me to add that I admire your work as DPL. You have done a marvelous job for two years, and will also give the project your best in your third term. I hope you adopt some of my ideas when you are re-elected. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00174.html
Re: To all candidates: Debian and people with disabilities
Hi Devin, On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 10:09 AM Devin Prater wrote: > > I'd like to ask a few questions of all candidates for Debian leadership. > As a person who is blind, these are of significant importance to me. > I hope that, in asking these questions and maybe sparking a > discussion on these topics, attention can be focused on Debian's > role in the lives of people with disabilities, and the companies and > organizations that use it. > > * Have you heard of the Debian Accessibility group? > * If so, have you worked with them in the past, or are you currently > working with them? > * Currently, Debian backports is how people with disabilities can > get the most up-to-date accessibility fixes and improvements > while remaining on a stable base system. For example, the > newest version of the Orca screen reader, with all of its fixes, and > newest version of ATSPI, the thing that makes Orca able to talk to > applications. Would you be willing to entertain the idea of moving > those updates directly to Debian stable? > * How would you present Debian to a group of people with > disabilities? What reasons would you give them for why they > should consider Debian? > * In many desktop environments, a user cannot use their assistive > technologies effectively unless they find and check a box > enabling the use of assistive technologies. Do you think that > this is good and fair to users? I have some modest vision challenges myself with thirteen diopters on both sides since my youth, but my risk is the detachment of both retinas due to the shape of my eyeballs. Fortunately, a correction via glasses has worked well so far. My condition is one reason why I live in Fremont, which is also home to California's School for the Blind. The entire city is equipped for the visually impaired (and also for the deaf). If I go blind one day, I will still be able to go shopping. I have heard of the Debian Accessibility group, but I do not recall having worked with you or your team on accessibility items. As a fellow user of the 'stable' base system (which I believe is somewhat uncommon inside Debian) I backport nearly all of my packages to bullseye. I would generally like to find a workflow to make backports more common overall. As project leader, I would support the Accessibility Group in any need, with high priority. You fall under a specially protected class. I would furthermore not hesitate to push for the use of project funds on your behalf, if that's not happening already. When asked to present to a group of people with disabilities, I would prefer to do so by your side. In advance, I would try to find a suitable position in our organization for any person agreeable to the Accessibility team (but subject to a confirmation by the appointments committee). I do not believe any delegation for better accessibility currently exists. I would then point to that "Accessibility Czar" as a reason why people with disabilities should use Debian. As for finding a box, it seems a terrible way to enable assistive technologies. How do you find it when you are blind? Maybe some desktop environments try to enable a few of those tools by default, but that calls for a technical solution. I pledge to work with you to improve the availability of accessibility tools in Debian. Thank you for bringing Debian to people in whose lives it can make a real difference! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Hi everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Richard, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:53 PM Richard Laager wrote: > > This is a complex topic, but in broad strokes, the concept of having > more people involved seems reasonable to me. But I fear that the idea > and the reality may be different. How do you plan to find all the people > to sit on these committees? Have you found some already? > > > that enjoy broad community support. > > That is, of course, a great goal. Do you have any specifics to offer > about how to achieve that? > > How would you handle contentious topics? The benefits of greater community involvement require fewer people than you might think (but hopefully a growing number). I'll try to illustrate that below. As project leader, my greatest concern would be to lend my own decisions some measure of democratic legitimacy. Let's take disbursements, for example. I would not be comfortable granting financial requests, other than on an emergency basis, without some type of community review. I might ask you, Richard, to serve on my Disbursements Committee together with someone I perceive as an equally strong person but otherwise different from you in some way. A small Appointments Committee could help me figure out who would be a good counterweight. In your case, I might approach Daniel Kahn Gillmor, who was copied as a courtesy. (Sorry Daniel, it's all hypothetical.) Anyone unhappy with Debian's disbursements could feed supplemental information to either one of you, who would then confront the other. Your meeting is open to the public. The threshold for community involvement is low, especially for folks afraid to write to the lists. For contentious topics, the debate over disbursements would automatically be compartmentalized to your tiny committee without burdening the entire project. There is no need to write to d-devel (or to threaten to do so) unless some outrageous conduct deserves broader attention. Neither would there be a need for a General Resolution, or the all too popular threat of one. The moderating effect grows with the size of your committee. The overall temperature of the project would also go down. We already do something similar with our technical teams. In summary: Yes, you are right. The reality will be different, but no one is perfect. As for finding the volunteers, my experience is that people will contribute if they can help control their own destiny. In a group, everyone only has to do a tiny part for the whole thing to get better! Jonathan would know how much time he spends deliberating over monthly disbursements. A committee with modest experience would probably take twice as long. Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Hi everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Tiago, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 7:56 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > I have to say I feel really troubled by reading this. It's hard to believe > that > a candidate for DPL addresses a legitimate and quite sensitive question with > such a rhetorical passive-aggressive borderline-bullying response. > > Well, at least it makes the voting easier for me. It was not a rhetorical question. Molly posted here three times regardless of any sensitivity. Each time I answered reluctantly, and in the abstract. After Steve McIntire's push to provide financial assistance, however, I realized that Molly's question may have been more than hypothetical. With my counter-question I hoped to clarify her request, because my answer would change. I would be prepared to provide some continuity of government, even if I personally disagree with actions taken before I was elected. (For example, to preserve the priority of a claim.) The degree depends on each case—again making any details ineligible to discuss here. In view of Molly's later assertion that she "didn't mention financial assistance or pursuing harassment claims in court," [1] I am no longer sure how to understand her original question. [2] I am sorry I was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00160.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00146.html
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Gunnar, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > This year I think I will break my usual > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ With that statement, you potentially committed two infractions—depending on where you live. First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be illegal in some places. [1] Second, you expressed a preference among candidates while holding public office. [2] That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in the US [3] and, to some extent, in Germany. [4] On a Debian list, you are an office holder with expanded authorities. Would it not be better to act moderately compared to membership, on average? Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://www.vox.com/21523858/ballot-selfies-state-rules [2] https://www.debian.org/intro/organization [3] for example on the federal level, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act [4] in German, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/650184/57e48f43ca79df7039003aff9850f8c9/WD-6-045-19-pdf-data.pdf
Re: Question to all candidates: registering Debian as an organization
Hi Bill, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 1:50 PM Bill Allombert wrote: > > Could someone explain what does that mean ? I'm sorry no one has gotten back to you so far. I do not know which ideas Jonathan Carter and Brian Gupta (copied as a courtesy) have been pursuing. My own thinking on this point is also evolving, as detailed below. I copied Christan Kastner to make sure he sees this expanded answer. If the project finances lawsuits, as suggested elsewhere, we may soon have a liability problem. Newton's law also applies in conflict: Exerting force always creates a counter-force. (Many folks in Debian do not understand that basic maxim of diplomacy.) It would only be a matter of time until we have to defend ourselves. The same thinking has kept me from pushing for lawsuits as your trademark delegate. Assuming we have X amount of money—I'm not sure the amount is public, and it would be dated anyway—a single lawsuit from a contributor for harassment at the 2022 Kosovo Debconf, as an example, could wipe us out. What if the contributor is female? Last time I checked we were 94% male. In a jury trial, the claim could settle at twice the amount we have, plus inflation. Lawyers fees would be extra. Our dreams of free software would be gone. If we accidentally formed a General Partnership, as has been suggested elsewhere, the plaintiff might be able to collect the award from our wealthiest members, who would then have to turn around and recover from the rest of us. It is called the doctrine of joint and several liability. [1] Maybe a patent troll would even set up a honey trap for us. Either way, it would be prudent to solicit broad legal input before taking steps toward incorporation. As project leader, I would contact Laurence Lessig [2] at the Harvard Law School as well as Richard Fontana and Eben Moglen—both long-time friends of the project—to see if they might host a symposium to help us figure out what to do. (I have no legal training.) I'm sure some law school graduate or post-doctoral students are interested in our potential transition. Looking into the future, please allow me to mention another big idea. What if the United Nations were to recognize a universal right to digital access and computing resources? Could Debian become part of a "World Digital Access Programme"? Under international treaties, I think it would shield us from most lawsuits in national courts. Our tax regime would also become super easy—probably none. Debian runs on older hardware. Plus, we have done a lot of hard work on international translations! I have friends who are or were high-ranking officials at the UN. With the project's permission, I might explore finding a home for Debian there. Would the UN be an appropriate potential home for our noble and selfless efforts? Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > If a Debian contributor > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Did the project provide assistance to you, and do you worry that the assistance might not continue if I am elected? Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 11:12 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Which do *you* perceive as proper? > > Come on, please stop evading the question. Thank you for your persistence, but I already answered that question. [1] Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00147.html
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:48 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Which would you be prepared to provide as DPL? Whichever the members perceive as proper. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Ross, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:42 AM Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > As DPL, you may confront issues which are not wise to handle > transparently. This could be due to negative social consequnces, legal > advice, etc. You answer makes me concerned that you intend to either: > - refuse to work on such issues > - unwisely turn them over to the broader community > > Maybe you just meant to address the two examples above, and not make a > general statement about your thoughts on being DPL? My response was directed at the questions Molly had posed, namely whether (1) contributors should be defended against third-party copyright claims or (2) whether contributors should be offered financial assistance when pursuing harassment claims in court. Both topics are of broad public interest. As project leader, I would seek to represent the will of the people, i.e. the members. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Steve, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:19 AM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Hmmm.. Do you not feel that project should stand with and support > contributors facing harassment because of their work in Debian? Are you asking for empathy or for financial assistance? Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > I'd like to hear about where you draw the line between individual > issues and community wide issues. To use an example of copyright > claims: Would it be Debian's responsibility if someone raised a > copyright claim against an individual for their participation in > Debian? Alternatively: If a Debian contributor (maintainer, developer, > etc) was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? Do you > think there's a significant difference if the copyright claim (or > harassment) is coming from inside the Debian community or outside? In my case, your questions are somewhat misdirected. I intend to exercise very few of the broad presidential powers available to the project leader under the constitution. I hope instead to devolve the concentration of power from my office into an open and transparent system of boards and commissions that enjoy broad community support. As with your previous question, I will try to give you at least a personal answer. Please consider, however, that I've had no legal counsel. I have also not spoken to the leadership of other, comparable projects to seek advice. By comparison my opponent Jonathan, who is also the incumbent, may have had the benefit of both. Your questions put me at a considerable disadvantage, but I will try to answer you as best as I can. My current position is that every contributor is responsible for their own actions. An indemnity for copyright claims is inappropriate because suits would become more attractive. Lawyers seek deep pockets. By the way, that part of your question connects in an important way to the topic of incorporation raised by Christian Kastner yesterday: Did Debian survive for so long in part because there was no organization to sue? Is that why we had the luxury of being on bad terms with the FSF? Faced with a suit from a patent troll, would we not huddle and cower with any friend we can find? EFF, anyone? The harassment case is easily distinguished in that (1) the victim seeks to initiate legal action instead of needing help with a defense, and (2) the project's survival is not at risk—unless the victim sues Debian as well. For harassment originating inside Debian, the project has (or will soon have) an appropriate disciplinary process. That is the extent of Debian's responsibility. Individual members additionally seeking legal remedies for harassment should please avail themselves of any court willing to hear their claims, at their own expense. I believe that some folks have done so with great success. As project leader, I would defer your questions to the membership. For my sense of community, please allow me to leave you with a quote from John F. Kennedy, which is inscribed at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Thank you for your complex set of follow-up questions! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: how is Debian doing?
Hi Lucas, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52 PM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Interesting. What would be the composition, roles, duties of that > Strategy Council ? Like all committees and boards I envision, the Strategy Council should have at least five but no more than twelve members. I personally like nine, if you can get that many volunteers. The council should set out to devise and keep updated solutions to all problems that (1) require more than three years of planning; (2) will not arise for another three years but some time thereafter; or (3) are otherwise critical for Debian's survival as a project. The council is encouraged to modify that list. Given your past service as project leader, I would be honored to appoint you as the first member (pending confirmation by the Appointments Committee). At the initial meeting, the council would elect a Chair and a Vice Chair, and also decide on its procedures. For example, you could form a subcommittee to develop bylaws, which could be as simple as: 1. The council has five seats, each to be held by an appointed member. 2. No action shall be taken nor any discussion take place unless at least half the seats are filled. 3. We will meet monthly. My only other requirement is that you try to follow California's open meeting laws [1] which, for starters, mean: (a) the meetings are open to the public; (b) you post an itemized agenda at least 72 hours before each meeting; and (c) you allow limited public comment (such as three minutes each for fewer than ten speakers, two minutes each for fewer than twenty speakers, and one minute each for thirty or more speakers). Finally and most important (d) members are prohibited from discussing council business with each other outside of meetings. That requirement exists so that interested people from the public may follow your deliberations. In lieu of written minutes, it may be best to record the meetings. It would also be nice if you could publish an annual top ten list of issues (potentially a single page) for the benefit of other project members. Thank you for your interest in the Strategy Council! Kind regards Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better! [1] https://www.calcities.org/detail-pages/resource/open-public-v-a-guide-to-the-ralph-m.-brown-act
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:49 AM Molly dB wrote: > > If you feel like it's appropriate, I'd appreciate hearing more details > on debian-private. Since Jonathan wrote that advances are imminent, I unfortunately do not think it's appropriate for us to discuss it any further, in any forum. Together with everyone else, however, you would be the first to learn more about my approach if I get elected and there is anything left to do. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: registering Debian as an organization
Hi Christian, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 9:48 AM Christian Kastner wrote: > > What is your position on registering Debian as an organization? > > I'm curious as to (1) what you think of the idea in general, and (2) > insofar you think this is a good idea, to what extent you'd consider > pursuing it during your term(s). >From what I have seen, Debian's governance is presently insufficient to support any kind of incorporation. At least on the trademark side, we cannot currently match the professional support we receive from Software in the Public Interest, Inc., which includes timely legal filings around the world. That being said, I believe Debian should stand on its own. I am ready to put Debian on a short path to incorporation. It is one of many reasons why I'd like to see a broadly democratic system of boards and commissions blossom, as quickly as possible, into a reliable, accountable, transparent and elected governing council that can handle funds and other project assets on behalf of our membership. I'll start on day one by forming a Disbursements Committee that will transparently handle all financial matters that come before me as project leader. The committee will operate according to California's open meeting laws. [1] The position of Incorporation Manager is open. Interested parties shall please apply. The day we shake loose will be memorialized as our "Independence Day." Thank you for your question of broad public interest! Kind regards, Felix Lechner [1] https://www.calcities.org/detail-pages/resource/open-public-v-a-guide-to-the-ralph-m.-brown-act P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: how is Debian doing?
Hi Lucas, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 8:55 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > How is Debian doing currently? We do what we have always done, but the world is changing around us. > What are the recent successes I might have missed? We are quirky, but very much alive! > Where did we fail or under-perform? We are falling behind other distributions and programming environments that embrace change and have corporate funding. > Which big challenges do you see ahead of us? Users may stop caring about Debian and pick one of many alternatives. > Are there opportunities that we could leverage? We need to motivate our contributors, who are our greatest assets, and attract many new ones to do great things together! If elected, I hope to form a Strategy Council that will re-evaluate as well as expand on those answers, and have solutions ready at all times. Thank you for asking such precious questions! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Molly, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 8:15 AM Molly dB wrote: > > In November 2021, it was discussed in debian-private that a team from > Debian had been working with a lawyer for a while. (Not sharing > details: issues remain ongoing.) How would you transition into taking > on this particular responsibility and similar longer running issues > should they arise in the future? I do not think anyone can answer topics from -private on this public mailing list without breaching project rules, but I'll try to alleviate your concern in a general way. After graduating from Harvard, I left engineering and entered a career in commercial real estate, where I remain licensed. For twenty years, I have helped clients achieve their objectives. While I have no legal training, an average transaction requires me to read between 100 and 6,000 pages of newly drafted and existing documents. (My total transaction volume is about $2.5 billion to date.) I am good with foreseeing conflict and proposing solutions to parties who have opposing interests. In short, I negotiate for a living. Compromise is my life. As for the situation from November 2021, I have a plan that I believe will work. If elected, I will not hesitate to implement it. For future challenges, I'd have to see what they are. Thank you for your question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Monthly "Bits from the DPL"
Hi Hideki, On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:28 AM Hideki Yamane wrote: > > And for that, I want **YOU** (contributors) to tell current situations. > I want to know, I want to hear, I want to talk with YOU (for the project > and me :) Your desire to engage with your future constituents embodies the highest virtues of representative government. I would be proud to have you as my project leader. Thank you so much for writing that! (The list was copied.) Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Re: Question to all candidates: Monthly "Bits from the DPL"
Hi Louis-Philippe, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:12 AM Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > > I would like to know what is the stance of the 3 candidates on producing > monthly "Bits from the DPL" reports on their activities. > > I like them very much and I think they are a great way to keep us all > informed of what the DPL has been doing. I totally agree with you. I also like reading them, monthly or however often they come out. > They do take time to produce though and some DPLs have preferred to > write less frequently. Speaking for myself, twelve letters a year are probably an acceptable burden for your sole elected representative. Feel free to ping my inbox starting on the fifth of each month if you have not received anything. At the same time, talented writers are encouraged to apply to help chronicle our progress as a project! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Ansgar, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:12 AM Ansgar wrote: > > You only mention delegates which have a formally easy way to get > replaced: the project leader can just do so. I limited my statement to delegates because my constitutional powers end there. For other matters, I would be an advocate like you or everyone else. > Do you think that an Appointments Committee should also handle package > maintainership and should we have term limits for how long people can > maintain packages, in particular core packages like gcc, libc, dpkg, > apt, ...? While a project leader cannot charge the Appointments Committee to look at maintainers, the committee is free to make such recommendations. The statements would be political. They exert pressure but have no effect otherwise. Over time, you would witness a separation of powers in Debian. Meetings of the Appointments Committee would be open to the public. Anyone can comment on the proceedings. The committee would follow California's open meeting laws. [1] Personally, I am not sure a term limit for maintainers is appropriate. The idea also falls entirely outside the leader's powers. Please make your case with the Appointments Committee, or apply to become a member thereof. Then you can use the political weight of your office to initiate a referendum. Thank you for the tough question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better! [1] https://www.calcities.org/detail-pages/resource/open-public-v-a-guide-to-the-ralph-m.-brown-act
Re: Question to all candidates: rotation on positions of power
Hi Charles, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 5:28 AM Charles Plessy wrote: > > What do you think of the reform of the Technical Committee that > introduced a limit to the time people can serve in, and would you > consider applying a similar policy to other positions of power in > Debian? I am a big fan of term limits. In many Western societies, especially in the US, some politicians will not retire. Their Baby Boomer constituencies are strong, and the needs of younger generations are not represented. Housing prices are an example. When people remain in power for too long, they also become tone-deaf. They forget those whom they serve. On a societal level, stagnation follows. There are no new ideas, and the group loses its brilliance. Often, the young move away. The political consequences are grave. Younger candidates struggle to compete with long track records of incumbents. Most disastrously for the group, the pool of possible replacements dwindles. It takes a village to fix it. Here is my plan: I hope to find enough volunteers to help the project leader evaluate future delegations. An Appointments Committee—with at least five but no more than twelve members—would collect broad and public input. If enough folks are willing to serve, our number of delegates would swell and still leave us with extra candidates. A future referendum could then introduce term limits for delegates, but first we need a deeper pool of replacements ready to serve. Thank you for asking that valuable question! Kind regards, Felix Lechner P.S. Everyone, please join #meetfelix on OFTC. I hope to get to know you better!
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2022: Call for nominations
Dear Mr. Secretary, > interested developers can nominate themselves Please accept herewith my nomination for project leader in the 2022-2023 term. My platform is available at that web address: https://happy.debian.net/ The web page is signed. Thank you so much! Kind regards Felix Lechner signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification
Hi Judit,
> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and "their":
{+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that their
vote is included in the votes+} cast.
Please proceed either way, at your choosing.
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting
Hi, On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:57 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > votes being public brings a few extra bits of transparency More than that, public votes are a measure of mutual trust. Fans are right to mourn their loss. Do we not live in polarized times? Kind regards, Felix Lechner
Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
I like this option. Let's place it on the ballot. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:44:34 PM EST Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
> that makes the following changes to the constitution.
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote public.
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
>of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
>confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
> So it's the proposed GR minus the changes
> not directly related to introducing secret votes.
>
> I ask for seconds aka sponsors for this Option.
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> Give the opportunity to vote for secret voting without needing to
> additionally vote for unrelated/only slightly related
> constitution changes;
> for example for the change of mode of voting
> from email to something not defined.
>
> As it was mentioned in the discussion,
> there might be no consensus on which options are direcly related -
> This option regards the need to allow verification (6))
> as directly related to secret votes, because otherwise
> they would become completely unverifiable.
>
> Summary of Changes
> ==
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
>public.
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
>of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
>confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
>
> 4.2. Procedure
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
>vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes {+cast in sufficient
> detail that anyone may verify the outcome of the election from the votes
> cast. The+} {+ identity of a developer casting a particular vote is
> not made+} {+ public, but developers will be given an option to
> confirm their vote is included in the votes+} cast.
>
> @@ -371,8 +390,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
> necessary.
>
> The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> Developers may cast their votes. [-Votes in leadership elections are-]
> [- kept secret, even after the election is finished.-]{++}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-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=Tq8c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Secret Ballots: How Secret
Hi On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM Bill Allombert wrote: > > If all the DD who votes A>B reveal the secret code returned by devotee, > anybody can check they indeed voted for A, and by doing a substraction > conclude that all the other voted for B, thus breaking the anonimity of > the vote even for those that kept their vote secret. Couldn't any voter for B claim that they did not vote, as long as the turnout was less than one hundred Percent? Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public
Hi, On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:12 AM Philip Hands wrote: > > Also, if the declarations of disdain needed to be public, that would > disenfranchise anyone that's only going to vote in secret ballots. Let's create a warm and inclusive political culture. Compromise should be our goal. It's not hard to work toward peace and understanding among ourselves. A great start would be to pay more attention to how we use the word "you." Uttered in a rage, the word is a crime. Whispered in love, the word is a blessing. Let's have more empathy for one another. Last month, someone gave me a nice Android phone. I refuse to enter credentials and cannot install software. I want Debian. How is that going to happen if we shrink or break apart? Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public
Hi, On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > Trying to be generous to one another and only tackle divisions when they > are of central importance to the project is a good principle, but I think > there are some divisions of central importance to the project, not > everyone is going to agree on which divisions are of central importance, > and six DDs have a right under the constitution to bring a GR to a vote. > I'm also leery of getting into another situation where a vote is going to > be worrisome but we have no framework to mitigate the effects because > we've been overly hopeful that we could avoid any such vote. Six DDs can force a vote, but not necessarily a decision. Would a higher quorum help to ensure that divisive issues remain moot unless there is broader interest? A quorum of 48 voters may satisfy a statistician, but 125 might ensure in addition that the issue being decided is in fact "of central importance." Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public
Hi, Please allow me to clarify three things for casual readers of my earlier post. On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands wrote: > > If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on > the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject > such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their > toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects. I see no way to expel people reliably based on what they might do. It violates basic tenets of justice to punish people for something they have not done yet—and may never do. > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:12 AM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL > wrote: > > > > This point is right. But I am not sure Debian is robust enough, today, > > to expell easily, quickly and without the victims to be disappointed to > > make part of the project, someone. recent examples show how such > > decisions are difficult, controversial, and while CT + DAM + DPL work on > > this, I think it is a long-term thought, given the original culture of > > Debian and the current society state of mind. Equipped with special investigative authority, members of the community team should be careful to recognize the due process concerns above. It also does not reflect well on their office to arouse public opinion in favor of even easier or quicker prosecutions. > It is hate speech, pure and simple—and should be grounds for > expulsion from the project. That was meant in the context of the debate and not a call for expulsion at this time. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public
Hi, On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands wrote: > > If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on > the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject > such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their > toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects. On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:12 AM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL wrote: > > This point is right. But I am not sure Debian is robust enough, today, > to expell easily, quickly and without the victims to be disappointed to > make part of the project, someone. recent examples show how such > decisions are difficult, controversial, and while CT + DAM + DPL work on > this, I think it is a long-term thought, given the original culture of > Debian and the current society state of mind. Based on the way people with minority opinions are treated, you would have to expel a lot of people. Moreover, the community cleansing effort being proposed here—which was also proffered in private channels—is a sure way to destroy Debian as we know it. It would not be the first time that a society attempts to exorcise a perceived evil from their midst. There are many precedents in history. All of them were condemned by later generations: the Salem witch hunt; McCartyism; the cultural revolution in China; collectivisation under Pol Pot in Cambodia; and perhaps most infamously the many attempts over time to expel or eradicate the Jews from various territories. The collective condition that leads to such madness is now well understood. It is a group form of splitting and projection [1] that affects entire societies. The phenomenon is easily recognized once you understand it. Because of the extreme danger, Orthodox Jews teach it. [2] One of Germany's great insights after World War II was that all calls for social upheaval are in themselves barbaric. The country now has special local and federal police agencies to monitor such corrosive speech (Verfassungsschutz). In 1949, Arthur Miller wrote the play "The Crucible" about it. He won a Pulitzer and many other accolades. In 1954, William Golding dealt with similar group dynamics in the novel "The Lord of the Flies." He received the Nobel Prize for Literature. I am embarrassed to read the statements above on a Debian mailing list. It is hate speech, pure and simple—and should be grounds for expulsion from the project. Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) [2] Sixth paragraph, https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/korach/how-not-to-argue/
Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public
Hi, On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 2:30 PM Don Armstrong wrote: > > I'd also appreciate hearing more specific examples of where someone > wasn't able to vote their true preference because the vote was public. People expecting (or maybe hoping for?) more political controversy may feel differently; see below. I personally would rather avoid the controversies, and the votes, that lead to such fears. > Recently posted here in another recent thread: > > This matter is extremely important for me, as soon as Debian starts > voting political/social GRs and not only technical ones. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Secret Ballots: Handling Disagreement with the Secretary
Hi, On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 9:22 PM Don Armstrong wrote: > > That said, if a majority uses the blunt force of §4.1.7 to try to get > its way by removing people, I'd be more concerned about the health of > the project than whether we had written rules to prevent it. I'd be more concerned about the health of the secretary. Such an extreme effort by the members might suggest a lack of capacity or other serious illness. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: General Resolution: Change the resolution process: results
Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:00 AM Philip Hands wrote: > > I don't see how encouraging people to vote who lack either an opinion on > the subject in hand, or the motivation to vote, is supposed to improve > the outcome. Yeah, I think it's based on mathematics. On average, higher turnout reduces the sampling error: "The error (or disturbance) of an observed value is the deviation of the observed value from the (unobservable) true value of a quantity of interest." [1] Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_and_residuals
Re: General Resolution: Change the resolution process: results
Hi, On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 6:37 AM Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > I'm wondering if there is anything we can do to motivate more > people to vote. >From Wikipedia's page on 'Get Out the Vote': [1] "GOTV is often most effective when potential voters are told to do so "because others will ask." Voters will then go to the polls as a means of fulfilling perceived societal expectations. Paradoxically, informing voters that turnout is expecting to be high was found to increase actual voter turnout, while predicting lower turnouts actually resulted in less voters. The red bar chart in the same article indicates something similar. Perhaps we should publish a list of actual voters afterwards, without their choices, or award badges on Salsa? In the present case, however, I agree with wRAR and zigo that this GR was especially dry. I would even argue that the mechanics of voting have no place in the constitution. It would be a more successful and more inspiring document if it were to capture our excitement of producing the best free operating system in the world. Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_out_the_vote
Re: Draft GR for resolution process changes
Hi, On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:06 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > This problem only applies if there are some options requiring a > supermajority and other options that require a simple majority. Thanks! I would find it easier if the same threshold to beat FD in a vote applied uniformly to all responses other than FD. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Draft GR for resolution process changes
Hi, On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:01 AM Sam Hartman wrote: > > we could (and did) say that option [FD] gets dropped. > So in the situation above, "The DFSG is great" wins even though more > people would have preferred to replace the DFSG than to say it was > great. Would option (2) win here even if it did not affirm the DFSG but instead sought to alter it in a way distinct from option (1)? Thanks! Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 10:28 AM Bdale Garbee wrote: > > being a good > citizen of a community like Debian means *not* side-stepping such > responsibilities. No sweat. How about the following? $500,000 Value of friendly and up-to-date team names [1] $200,000 Cost of implementation [2] $300,000 Net benefit to Debian Please consider, however, that no individual opinion—and especially not mine—can stand for the group's preferences. As the proposer, I am biased. Why argue? > the workload you > may be imposing on others by taking something to a project-level vote Voting is a right. [3] Advocates help with the process. The project imposes decisions by approving or rejecting resolutions. [4] Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] Recruiting 50 excess contributors over ten years, at a lifetime contribution of $10,000 each. [2] 2,000 hours of work at $100, a rate roughly in line with https://www.debian.org/consultants/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage [4] Section 2.1, https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 5:12 AM Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > Those proposing > improvements must also demonstrate how the claimed improvements > provide greater benefit than the cost incurred in implementing the > improvements. I had hoped to sidestep that responsibility by putting the matter to a vote. Long live democracy—freedom and liberty for all! Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Hi On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > If your point is, instead, that Wouter's general system is undesirable > yes, I largely agree Without reflecting on either proposal, I merely cautioned that constitutional amendments should be based on sound premises. As to the point between you and Wouter, is there perhaps a simpler measure when a discussion is over—such as one week without a proposal that attracted at least three novel supporters (in total)? Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Do we want to Handle Secret Ballots in the same GR as Voting Changes
Hi On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:38 AM Sam Hartman wrote: > > rather than jumping to disrespect. Please let's not fight fire with fire. I found Holger's comment quite compassionate—at least compared to the comments he directed at me—and would like to congratulate him. He did not know that his facts were off. Neither did anyone else. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Hi, On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 7:43 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > Maybe you could > try rephrasing in the hope that I may understand a different version of > the question better? The question did not have an answer. [1] To avoid pain, the project prefers shorter discussions on controversial topics. It is the opposite of what you wrote. Secret votes will reduce fear, but for a wholesome remedy contributors have to forgo provocation and punishment and instead seek compromise and common ground. Both will lead to a lasting peace. Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > I don't understand the question. > That system does not currently exist, and therefore this could > not have happened Without wanting to take up too much bandwidth, I believe that deductive logic misses key insights. [1] More broadly, you are not the only one who thinks I have strange feathers. I mean, what is this guy talking about? He has so much to learn! Perhaps this short video [2] can shed some light on how two parties might examine the same subject from two sides. In some form, it will solve Debian's social issues. Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LltoUg_WL2k
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Hi, On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 3:53 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > makes it very easy to extend it > This will probably happen for all but the most urgent and > uncontroversial GRs. Didn't we just see the opposite? In the most recent referendum, the decisive argument for shortening was the existence of hardened fronts rather than a lack of controversy. Sam suspected that people had made up their minds. [1] The DPL later cited urgency, but did so without an explanation and in an apparent attempt to end the fighting quickly. [2] The vote was urgent only because it threatened to tear the community apart. The outcome was close, too—and anything but uncontroversial. Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00106.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00115.html
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 2:45 PM Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > I am pretty sure that was a 100% calculated move > to go directly to this. It was impromptu. The mail was intentional only in the sense that I hoped to find a topic to unite people. (Who likes slavery, anway?) Let's lose the fear of referendums. Our fellow contributors are our trusted partners in this noble endeavor! Debian is good. The group is good. Please have a good weekend, everyone! Felix
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, > This is turning, yet again, into a "Germans debate German language > issues" thread. Please don't worry. Having started it, I will lead us out again. > it's reasonable for Debian to judge "master of a slave" and > "master of the package archive" completely differently. Yes, it's reasonable, but it's not nice. This isn't even about changing the colloquial use. I am asking for your vote to change an official term. It is already outdated. The hope is to make Debian a more welcoming place. It would be a gradual process, because change is hard. How much of a concession could it be? Does it feel like social engineering, or like the drumbeat of the political left? It is neither, although it would help if you felt that way. No one likes to be commanded around—you don't, and neither did the slaves. See, you have so much in common! Either way, I am just asking for your vote. You can say no, and I won't judge you for it. But I will say, please. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, > you mean, people in Debian die? I'm speechless and pretty unimpressed. Martial law is the ad-hoc implementation of simple laws to control a population. [1] In modern democracies, it only happens to stop widespread unlawful behavior during public unrest. While effective, it is not healthy for a society because all decisions are made on the spot and without due process. [2] It is an emergency measure and has nothing to do with people dying. Most often it's a nightly curfew or the taking of private property. > I'm a native German speaker and "Führer" is widely and > completely uncontroversially used in German in lots of contexts That is, as you noted, somewhat true for the word "master" as well, but your portrayal of a wide and unequivocal acceptance of the word "Führer" in German society is fictional. [3] I am from Berlin, and people hesitate to use the word anywhere near its historical meaning—except in fringe groups. [4] Finding synonyms is a common web search. There are 683 of them. [5] > the biggest and bluntest hammer Naming a post office is not a hammer. It may be perceived that way because the threat of a GR has so often been used as a last resort when fighting, but peace is possible. We just need inclusive behavior, a tolerance for difference, and the seeking of common ground. [6] It could be the birth of a virtual republic. Have hope! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law [2] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5_4_1/ [3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer#Sprachgebrauch [4] https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/die-enthemmte-mitte-schockierende-studie-ueber-rechtes-denken-jeder-zehnte-deutsche-wuenscht-sich-einen-fuehrer-wie-hitler_id_5638932.html [5] https://www.buchstaben.com/synonym/f%C3%BChrer [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:14 PM Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > I'm at a loss to actually find polite words to describe how off it is, > to do this via a GR. The mildest vote in the U.S. House of Representatives is the naming of a U.S. Post Office. I think it would be such a vote. How can someone not be for it? By the way, we are behind the times. Many universities have avoided the term since 2016. [2] It was also in the newspapers a year ago. > the GR should give the new name I did not wish to bind future generations. > just because some group of racists happens to use the same word For better or for worse, we are part of a larger world. For the German speakers among us, it may make sense that "Führer" isn't a great word, either. [1] We live with history. > did you engage with the FTP master team That would not achieve the intended purpose. Voting in unison can be therapeutic for a group. Our discussions are too aggressive or accusatory, and too long. For once, there would be peace. We can use a little more consensus. Isn't this conversation milder and shorter than most? > Debian is a very risk averse and slow to change project. We need more trust. The group has to rise—as a moral force, but gently—over the arbitrary and capricious nature that makes us who we are. In short, we need more compassion for each other and more inspiration to do good. Some call it culture. The strong maintainer model is one big reason. DAM is desperately trying to rule. The code of conduct isn't working. We effectively live under martial law, a very low and unjust way to organize our group's affairs. What does it mean to be sophisticated? Debian can do better. > I'd suggest the debian archive team Personally, I like Archive Operations. I also had the FTP vs HTTP thingy on my mind, but all the technical questions miss the human point: It was to seek common ground among people. > It is *very* silly I was not offended. Please call me anything—just do not lie. (You didn't.) Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] Given the extraordinary atrocities, that comparison is only illustrative. It was also not my idea, but I can't find the reference. [2] https://www.thecollegefix.com/rice-u-away-master-term-cites-negative-historical-connotation/
Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, I would like to rename the FTP Masters team—ideally via a General Resolution. Since the murder of George Floyd, the average fate of Black lives has received much attention. Even the tech sector picked up the "master/slave" topic over a year ago. [2][3][4] There should be little controversy. With a high pass rate, we could all come together as a group—for our shared love of Debian and free software! What do you think about the text below, please? Thanks for reading! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Floyd [2] https://www.wired.com/story/tech-confronts-use-labels-master-slave/ [3] https://www.cnet.com/news/master-and-slave-tech-terms-face-scrutiny-amid-anti-racism-efforts/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/technology/racist-computer-engineering-terms-ietf.html * * * PROPOSED TEXT In recognizance of the awful history of slavery, the Debian project will rename the "FTP Masters" team. For a long time, the word "master" has been associated with the grave injustices of slavery. [1] While there is a tradition in computing to label primary equipment as a "master" and replicated equipment as "slaves" [2] the use of the word "masters" for a group of people with special privileges [3] shocks the conscience. Within that context, the team's use of the title "wizard" [4] was also problematic. The Ku Klux Klan and its spinoffs used the title "wizard" to style high officials. [5] The team will likewise discontinue the use of the term "wizard" to designate any current or former members. Nothing in this resolution shall impair the continued use of the "master/slave" analogy for technical equipment. "Without a struggle, there can be no progress." (Frederick Douglass) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) [3] "The FTP masters can do everything in the archive.", https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/FTPMaster [4] "The FTP Wizard role consists of former team members", https://ftp-master.debian.org/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Wizard
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Hi, On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:23 AM Russ Allbery wrote: > > To fully achieve what Wouter is calling for would therefore *also* require > a constitutional change. As a proponent of a living process, I would welcome such an alternative on the ballot. Russ's motivation strikes me as extremely noble: With rules, people feel treated fairly. At the same time, better rules do not make better decisions. For Debian—a free-spirited volunteer project—I find Wouter's vision of a healthy and flexible democratic process more compelling. Why not put the people first? Being new, I wrote with some hesitation. Thank you for reading! Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Hi Russ, Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. Sorry if it seems like I hijacked your thread. On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:04 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > > I'm reading this as another message of support for a tied vote in the TC > to result in an outcome of further discussion or to automatically set off > a GR. Let me know if I misunderstood. My point was broader. I envision nothing "automatic" but would leave it instead to the TC Chair, in a living process, to precipitate an outcome that survives public scrutiny and even outcry. I base that demand on public leadership on my own modest experience in city government (on a library commission, including as Chair). Your concerns about tactical voting may be better handled by observers—such as the press, or fearless advocates of transparency like Adrian—while the process unfolds. For the writer of a constitution, fear weakens the document's intuitive appeal, however imprecise the wording may seem. One cannot legislate thoughtful or honest conduct. Our best hope is to inspire it. > I think the constitution is the wrong foundational document to look to for > the "minds of the governed." The constitution is concerned primarily with > the procedural details. We have to spell them out somewhere so that we > have a shared basis to make hard decisions in a way that we've previously > agreed would be fair (even if we're on the losing side). Why focus solely on the defeat? Is the "hard decision" not in fact a win for the group? The constitution's projection of hardened confrontation entails a terrible reflexivity: A 3:1 supermajority leaves no gray area. There is no gentle nudge and no room for measurement. The maintainer was so wrong, fixing it required the second-worst measure in the Debian universe. (Expulsion being the most drastic.) No defeated maintainer will go to bed that night. thinking "well I lost, but it was a close call." I would like to give the system more wiggle room. Perhaps one day Joey Hess will tell me why he thought the constitution was "a toxic document" when he left. [1] [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html > The reason for the rework of the TC process in this proposal is precisely > because the TC's decision-making capabilities previously partially broke > down in ways that left a lot of damage behind, including accusations of > unfairness. This proposal would prevent the procedural circumstances that > happened previously from happening again, in a way that I hope is more > transparently fair and predictable than the current process. Procedural safeguards do not build consensus—the all-elusive project-wide goal the constitution so decidedly disavows. Maybe your changes will not reduce the accusations of unfairness that prompted them, and just silence them. In another example of reflexivity, strong rules are a sign of conflict. They are not needed—and rarely adopted—in peaceful and easy-going communities. > My experience in multiple heated debates in > Debian, and in similar problems in other governance debates and on-line > communities, is that having good, clear, and previously-agreed process is > exactly what creates the space for people to be gracious and collaborative > even when they strongly disagree with the opinions of others. Please do not read my response as second-guessing your experience. I am simply using this "space ... to be gracious and collaborative even" though I "strongly disagree with the opinions of others". > But I think the net long-term effect is to reduce the > temperature. How has it worked out so far? Thanks! Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Hi, On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 6:24 AM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > whenever there is no clear majority in the TC ... > the TC should ... propose a GR instead For a committee that effectively appoints its own members, it is probably unwise to ask the Chair to resolve split votes except in the most trivial of cases. A general vote, on the other hand, would supply the broad democratic legitimacy needed to silence critics forever. When facing that monumental and often disproportionate alternative, some TC members may reconsider their votes. At least I would. More generally, foundational documents do not captivate the minds of the governed when laden with procedural details. Our constitution already shuns a common purpose with "It does not describe the goals of the Project" (which for some reason comes right after the more positive "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system."). In the current thread, I miss simple language as to whether the purpose of decisions is legitimacy or speed. Personally, the latter seems inconsistent with Debian's releases, which occur when the time is right. [1] If a brief excursion is permitted in our community of programmers, I have over the past three years dropped thousands of hilarious conditionals [2] from Lintian—another expression of our common rules—because they too often obscured the code's purpose. My recommendation would be to reduce the complexity of the Constitution, as well: I would rely on a simple popular vote when needed (GR, and perhaps elections) but otherwise leave the TC to its own devices—including the ability to overrule a maintainer with an absolute majority (not 3:1). The TC has over the years proven itself to be a trusted and transparent institution with good decision-making capabilities. We act better in groups and more wisely than as individuals, with or without rules. Thanks for reading! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReleasePolicy [2] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/c36f898110dd83f57eeccf715e4908a3c0931752
Privacy guarantees
Hi, A fellow developer and I have reached an impasse over the appropriate level of privacy guarantees in Debian. [1] Would this esteemed group please advise if the topic is in some form suitable for a General Resolution? The aggrieved party is likely to appeal my forthcoming lack of action to the Technical Committee. [2] While the Technical Committee is more or less Debian's Supreme Court, it seems unfair to burden that select group of ours with matters of broad social significance. The Policy Team was similarly reluctant. They have not acted on the matter in nearly eight years. [3] The maintainer of a well-known web browser took a stance in the middle. [4] My own position was outlined here. [5] In the spirit of seeking common ground, I would like to offer to the aggrieved party that we co-sponsor a General Resolution together. Is that appropriate? Thank you! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://bugs.debian.org/743694 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743694#44 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/726998 [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765503#5 [5] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743694#24
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
Hi, On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable. Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter with prejudice, even though the weight to bring them again may be substantial. Therefore, doing nothing is very similar to doing nothing but talking more. As we all heal from this divisive issue, I furthermore find it meaningful that proponents of a shortened discussion, who were at times accused of pushing the resolution, were actually aligned with voters: By a narrow margin, people did not want to discuss the matter at all. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Hi, On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:33 PM Martina Ferrari wrote: > > Fuck that > you were in the first line on my bingo card. > Lol, "trot" off dude. > your amazingly stupid retort > another character that is also fanning the flames in this list > and also was on my bingo card, I am on a roll!! > all my efforts ... went to the crapper. I find this language thuggish and abusive. It is not worthwhile reading and can spoil a person's day. Why is a person allowed to post something like this, and why do we look outside Debian to blame people? We have plenty of problems at home. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: What does FD Mean
Hi Simon, On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:15 PM Simon Richter wrote: > > You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a > single one-dimensional axis I don't think I said that—nor do I believe it. My question was about the ballot, which more or less imposes a linear ranking. > and that middle ground positions are always > preferable. Yes, compromise and middle-ground positions are essential for peace, but unlike you said it is not an assumption. It is a realization borne by life experience. Perhaps it helps to be a party to civil proceedings (and maybe you have been, too). Judges are our experts of peace. They devote their lives to hearing and resolving other people's problems. And from what I have seen, neither party ever gets what they want. Anyone who says differently has a hidden agenda, or is maybe delusional. > These are correlated, but not the same, so it is difficult to position > all of the options on a single axis. It was easy for me to rank some contradictory non-center options next to each other. > Even if it were a one-dimensional axis, there are good chances that a > middle ground position would be worse than an extreme position, I reject such claims. They are dangerous to peace. Perhaps there is a chance, but unless you can identify details among the options on the ballot, it remains a theoretical argument. Any group must have a center of gravity that pulls its people together, otherwise it will split up. That is not what I hope for, in Debian or otherwise. > rank the favourability of these outcomes instead > of trying to rank them by closeness to a desired position statement People can approach the ballot any way they like. > There are more than two sides here, and multiple definitions of "peace". There are not. Many paths lead to war, but only one leads to peace. Something whole breaks into pieces. Please drop a glass if you have doubts. > One possible definition differentiates Thanks for the link! Lacking experience, I struggle to respond to an academic review paper, but I think you are possibly caught up in the abstract distinctions of an expert whose business it is to write such papers (Galtung). In my mind, the "negative peace"—the absence of overt violent conflict—is not a peace at all, but a truce, and therefore a misnomer insufficiently mitigated by the qualifying adjective. On that note, did you notice that the UN appropriated its wreathen symbols from the Roman legion? Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Re: What does FD Mean
Hi, On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:33 AM Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > > Moving FD around in the > ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott. When a center option is likely to fail our majority requirement [1] should I rank preferable extreme choices above FD even if I am strictly moderately inclined? Along the same lines, would it be better for a voting system to quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides is always a prerequisite for peace? Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] Section A.6 (3) of the constitution: https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
Re: New option for the RMS/FSF GR: reaffirm the values of the majority
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
RESEND of "Neutral option"
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
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
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: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Hi, On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 1:37 PM Philip Hands wrote: > > Is that really what we're seeing? Yes, that is exactly what we are seeing. Thank you for explaining it. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
Hi, On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > I could move to voting software like Belenios Moving to new software without preparation or a chance to practice could discourage centrist voters—i.e. those who care least but provide the gravity to hold the project together. It could perhaps harm the vote's legitimacy, especially in view of the perceived rush and the already abbreviated discussion period. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
Hi, On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:01 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > This would be a vote I would also like to see as secret. The Maybe a solution would be to offer two alternatives of each option on the ballot—one as currently stated, and one that includes a secret vote instruction to the secretary. It would require an explanation to voters to clear up the confusion, but would result in the greatest legitimacy. As an alternative, all delegates and the DPL could perhaps vote to stay the release of voter identities until the electorate voted on the matter. As a stop-gap solution conceived to head off a constitutional crisis, it might work because there is no explicit promise of timeliness in the constitutional part that reads "after the vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast." Unfortunately, neither alternative will comfort voters afraid of reprisals, because there is no guarantee of privacy. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
Hi, On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:17 AM Pasha wrote: > > Could you please provide any historical example of your "mob justice" ? Sadly, a discussion over proof cannot solve the issue. The request of a single eligible voter—motivated by fear or otherwise—should trigger a secret procedure. (Although it is not so in a representative body, where accountability is paramount.) That is what my high school did, when I served as student leader. In a positive light, secrecy requests are a great measure of the environment in which a vote was conducted, and also show the health of the community with respect to mutual trust. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that > their expression should always be free. Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] Please also see "Thought Police". [2] Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Hi, On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:24 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending > these. Ideas should always be free. That's how I understand diversity. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Hi, On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 5:05 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful That's intent to harm—and maybe malice. Anyone wishing to harm someone should do so on their own. I want no part in it. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Hi, On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 4:33 PM Adrian Bunk wrote: > > being expelled from an association can be > contested in regular courts. So can incitement to mayhem. What if a crazy person harms a targeted individual after reading Debian's statement? Alternatively, please consider libel: Debian probably has a nexus to England, where the burden of proof for defamation is reversed. Publishing such a strong statement is not wise. Or, most significantly, what happens if a targeted person dies as a result of the public shaming? The injured parties could end up owning Debian. I don't think those risks are worth taking—even we had liability insurance. Should we just focus on getting the bullseye release out? Kind regards Felix Lechner
