Re: voting instructions (was Re: GR: tag2upload)
On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 10:07 AM BST, Peter B wrote: > The GR was withdrawn. Thank you Peter (and Andrey). A careful reading of the GR page agrees. Best wishes, -- 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net
voting instructions (was Re: GR: tag2upload)
Hello, On Thu Jul 4, 2024 at 9:22 PM BST, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote: > A general resolution about tag2upload has been started. Details are at: > https://www.debian.org/vote/2024/vote_002 Forgive me for asking perhaps obvious questions, but I've been off sick for a few weeks and I'm not operating at full mental capacity. The -announce mail had almost no information in it whatsoever: no voting instructions, no time period definitions. The GR page has one date, that I can see, Discussion period: 2024-06-27 (which is in the past at the time of writing) I do not know whether the Discussion period has ended, whether voting is open or not, when that closes, nor how to vote. It's been a while since I've voted in a GR, but for DPL votes the mail-outs are comprehensively documented and very easy to follow. Any tips gratefully received. (Perhaps I've just missed a separate ballot email?) -- 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 01:09:13PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: Over the last decade that has changed a lot, and DebConf is now as much part of the Debian project as any other Debian sub-project. We now mostly use the same Debian TOs (unless there's a good reason to add a temporary one for a conf), the DebConf committee is delegated within the project and there's no external setup of DebConf that exists anymore whatsoever. I guess you could nitpick on what "formally a part of Debian" means, I mean, we don't have formal agreements with most teams within Debian, but as far as DebConf is concerned, I wouldn't say it's any more or less a part of Debian than any other Debian sub-project. That's great news! -- Please do not CC me for listmail. 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 04:17:42PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: Half the people on this planet are living in countries that did not approve the "Aggression against Ukraine" UN resolution, including many Debian contributors. The proposed GR text makes no reference to that UN resolution, so I don't know why you bring it up. Does the Debian project consider the territorial integrity of a country more important than the opinion of the majority of the people living in a part of the country? If the Debian project declares it considers Donbas and Crimea to be part of Ukraine You have stopped short of saying "the majority of the people in Donbas and Crimea do not consider themselves to be part of Ukraine" but if that's what you are intending to assert then you're going to have to show some hard evidence. -- Please do not CC me for listmail. 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 08:21:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: If a Debconf location is also considered a political statement as you imply then we have to choose Debconf locations by means of GR, starting with a GR right now whether Debian wants to consider Kosovo a self-determined sovereign nation by holding Debconf 2022 there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Debconf is not formally a part of Debian, and so cannot be bound by the outcome of a GR anyway. -- Please do not CC me for listmail. 👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland ✎j...@debian.org 🔗 https://jmtd.net
Re: Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd
f policy consensus cannot be reached on such a facility, the Technical Committee should decide based on the project's wishes as expressed in this GR. BEING EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER 10. In general, maintainers of competing software, including maintainers of the various competing init systems, should be accomodating to each others' needs. This includes the needs and convenience of users of reasonable non-default configurations. 11. Negative general comments about software and their communities, including both about systemd itself and about non-systemd init systems, are strongly discouraged. Neither messages expressing general dislike of systemd, nor predictions of the demise of non-systemd systems, are appropriate for Debian communication fora; likewise references to bugs which are not relevant to the topic at hand. Communications on Debian fora on these matters should all be encouraging and pleasant, even when discussing technical problems. We ask that communication fora owners strictly enforce this. 12. We respectfully ask all Debian contributors including maintainers, Policy Editors, the Release Team, the Technical Committee, and the Project Leader, to pursue these goals and principles in their work, and embed them into documents etc. as appropriate. (This resolution is a position statement under s4.1(5).) Seconded. -- Jonathan Dowland signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Q to all candidates: what is the long-term role of traditional Linux distributions?
Thanks for asking these questions. I'm *really* interested to see how all the candidates respond (if they do) -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Re: Questions about "Winding down my Debian involvement"
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Joerg, On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:17:51PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: OTOH we need to stay open for enhancing things. So while I am a fan of "dh for everyone, throw away all the hand crafted stuff", it should not make it impossible to come up with new stuff in the future. Fine for NEW stuff. I could also imagine exceptions for *really* complex stuff. I fail to see any reason why to refuse a patch turning rules to dh for those simple packages just out of personal preference. My point is to stop random personal preferences overriding team maintainable packages that do not have any specific requirements. Here's something that occurred to me. Imagine you had a team that, within the team, had standardised on (say) SVN and cdbs. Whenever that team picked up a new package, they then used SVN and cdbs for it: because that was then consistent for the packages within the team. Even if the rest of Debian had moved in other ways (and even if their upstreams had moved in other ways wrt VCS) So the consistency argument is more nuanced if one strives for consistency within a sub-community of Debian. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Re: having public irc logs?
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:39:39PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > I hereby threaten to rank below NoTA any candidate who supports > public irc logs. BRB, just making some loose leaf tea, so I can read it to get your reasoning. Or perhaps you wrote it in an IRC channel when I wasn't looking. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Since Debian is an international project, with many (I expect a > majority but am too lazy to check) of non-native English speakers, > maybe taking a more unwieldy, but more clear route, would be better: > Chairperson? "Chair" is not ambiguous if you pay attention to the capitalisation, it's a proper noun. Therefore there's no need to change it to disambiguate. NACK -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > Except I'm not posting to debian-private, but to debian-vote. Oh, > silly me. I wonder if there will be sanctions for this egregious violation of our privacy and trust ;) -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
Hi Ian, On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Thanks for your message. You're welcome, thanks. > Don's proposed resolution clearly does not close the door. It makes > it possible for someone who is interested in declassification to try > to develop a workable process, consult listmaster and the project, and > to actually declassify things. If there is in fact anyone who wants > to do this. > > (I don't think Nicolas's version closes the door either but the > clarification of intent in Don's amendment is useful.) I do prefer Don's amendment on this particular point. > I don't understand your analogies. They're a bit histronic, for which I apologise. > If you think that -private is a breach of our principle of openness, > then the corresponding response would be to abolish it. Or perhaps > implement some kind of restrictions on its (ab)use (beyond mere social > convention, which we already have and which we do indeed occasionally > breach). This is perhaps where I will appear most contradictory. I agree that in the pure principle of openness, we shouldn't have a -private. However, we need one for pragmatic reasons. We should therefore avoid using it as much as we can. I think we're all in agreement with this so far. The "safe space" argument I've just made in another thread reply is why I get particularly uncomfortable about how we phrase that discouragement. I think, if someone feels that they can't take the heat for posting something on e.g. -devel at a particular given moment, then I would rather permit them to make the choice to post on -private (that is, weighing up the openness argument versus the flamebait problem on a per-post basis and for themselves) and have their contribution than not have it at all. However, this approach for me is less acceptable if there is a diminished chance of such "flame-retardant" discussions from ever being declassified, which I think would be the case after this GR passes. The dissonance might simply be I perceive the current state of affairs to be that we might actually declassify some of -private, some day, and the GR (original text at least) makes it less so. (I even had "join the declassification effort" on my long-term TODO list, but I have done precicely nothing). Adding the riders about a better process soothes this a bit. I'd love to know what the original GR proposer (Daniel Ruoso) thinks about this; or the seconders (inc Neil McGovern who is still active at least); I seem to recall Amaya was involved but I could be remembering wrong. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
Although this part of the text originates from the original GR text and not Don's amendment, my comment applies as much to the amended text so I'm threading it here: On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 05:56:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. One issue I have is this amounts to a form of gagging order. Have we had an exploration of why people sometimes choose to converse on -private, rather than elsewhere? Such analysis (and results therefore) would of course have to be on -private too, but I put forth the following theory for *some* people choosing to, which I have felt myself: some discussions on our public lists have been horribly toxic and attract participants who are not otherwise constructive parts of our community. We are all only human and sometimes we don't have the emotional energy to deal with that. -private is, even if it isn't designed to be, a virtual safe space. -- Jonathan Dowland signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
This seems a shame to me. It's a promotion of pragmatism over idealism, suggesting that despite the project believing that a course of action is the right one, it won't happen, pre-supposing any future interest or effort will not exist, which is quite pessimistic (however realistic); essentially closing the door on the issue. I don't know what the driver is for this to done now. What precedent does this set for any other idealistic goals for the project? Perhaps we should give up on annexing non-free firmware, or relax other aspects of our committment to freedom in the face of hard realities like hardware not having free drivers? -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > What's the procedure for removing someone from the technical > committee? An alternative to picking on one committee member would be to disband the current committee entirely, with an explicit rider stating that the action should not reflect on any one member in isolation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110075510.gc27...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Plan B for kfreebsd
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:05:25PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > Debian kFreeBSD looks dead in the water and that won't change whilst so > many DDs are so pro systemd -- I think that systemd was the final nail > in the coffin. It won't change so long as people don't work on it. In a reply to a very similar-toned post of yours to debian-user, I pointed out that there were plenty of constructive ways that *you*, or anyone else, could contribute towards ensuring the next release of Debian was how you wanted it. In that case it was testing sysvinit support. If you truly cared about Debian/kFreeBSD, you wouldn't be trying to blame systemd for its shortcomings, you'd be rolling your sleeves up and fixing bugs. Please don't post any more to debian-vote. This list is meant to serve a particular purpose for people who are prepared to work on improving Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141110075054.ga27...@chew.redmars.org
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 04:27:21AM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote: > I'd assume he was referring to: > > > If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those > > who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision. > > > If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over > > individual systemd dependencies. > > This to me reads like the threat Holger mentioned. And for the record, I was > very surprised to this given the history of the decision. FWIW, I did not read this as a threat, or at least, I did not read it as suggesting that Ian himself would participate in this bitter rearguard action. I read this as meaning Ian suspected that unless his GR was carried, various anti-systemd people would not be mollified and their disagreement would percolate down to individual packages and bugs, rather than being discussed (and potentially addressed) at a project-wide level. As such, and I'm assuming good faith on Ian's part here, I think Ian was trying to describe what he thought was the likely outcome, and not specifically threaten to behave in a particular way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141109102640.gc29...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:46:44AM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > fwiw, as this seems to be a commonish error - you mean "could not > care less". People who could care less by definition do care. It's an en_US thing, I think. http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldcare.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030143002.ga14...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:32:00AM +0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > This discussion can end for good in two ways: > * Debian declares that user choice of init systems is important and > applications must respect that; > * Debian declares that only systemd is supported; The currently GRs appear to be orthogonal to this binary view of the discussion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030083836.ga7...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Hi Lucas, On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:07:42AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the > current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to > propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course > fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it > at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose > additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current > amendments. I have no plans to proposed another amendment myself, no. I've actually not given the discussions thus far as much attention as I would have liked to, partially waiting for the dust to settle before properly evaluating the options. My concern about reducing the discussion period is one of perception. You have the authority to reduce it as DPL. But you also authored one of the amendments. There's nothing procedurally that prevents you from exercising both rights, but I am concerned that whichever way the voting goes, there will be a faction of people who will consider the vote to have been compromised. I know that you are not attempting to rush through a decision to get the outcome you desire; and I'm sure none of our DD colleagues would accuse you of that either. But there's a large peanut gallery watching the project at the moment, and any perceived irregularity will be jumped on. snip > ...could be better to wait for the outcome of the present GR to vote > on a TC resolution. And that TC resolution could have an impact on > the release. It would indeed be a shame if the release was delayed as a result of this GR. One has to weigh up the risks of that, versus the risks I've outlined above. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141024132751.ga24...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
Dear Lucas, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined > to shorten the discussion period. I hope you consider the point raised in 20141017090800.ga3...@chew.redmars.org before taking this action. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141023065258.gd20...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:16:37AM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > Do you consider uselessd to be the same init system as systemd? To me > this looks like a legitimate fork. Albeit one that isn't in the archive; there's an RFP bug[1] but noone has taken ownership of it / created an ITP. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141019212140.ga20...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 08:38:25AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > I wonder if, in the circumstances, the DPL should use their power > under 4.2.4 to reduce the discussion period to 1 week. I think this is a terrible idea. I agree that there are entrenched people on two sides of the argument, but there are others (myself included) who want to give a well-constructed GR (thus, we need a round of amendments to consider) proper, thorough consideration. If we start messing with the GR process in this way then whoever is on the losing side of the outcome will call the whole process foul. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017090800.ga3...@chew.redmars.org
Re: [all candidates] the release process
On 3 Apr 2013, at 17:29, Moray Allan wrote: > The campaign period already finished a few days ago Yes, I was aware of that when I posted, but RL interfered with me asking prior to voting opening. I sought advice as to whether it was appropriate to ask further Qs and got a luke-warm "yes". My reading of the timescale did not proclude questions past the start of voting, it seems ambiguous. > So as I understand it we candidates aren't meant to reply to election > questions any more. If the candidates are reluctant to answer now for this reason perhaps the secretary or current dpl can clarify or rule on the issue? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/807fb910-4720-4d89-8917-a1e49fcee...@debian.org
[all candidates] the release process
What are the candidates opinion on the current release process? Can it be improved? What role should the DPL play in such work? Thanks - with apologies for raising this at a release-sensitive time, but obviously it has to be at a vote-appropriate time… -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130403153850.GE11273@debian
Re: [all candidates] What to do with debian-private ?
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 08:59:39AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I'm not sure we need that. There's an expectation that vacation messages > have a [vac] prefix in the subject, which is mostly followed (although > sometimes people do forget it). That makes it fairly easy to filter them > out for those who're not interested in them. Yes, and even a simple filter (mine is currently [.*vac\s*] or similar) works 99% of the time. I like replies to VACs to go to my -private folder. I use a similar scheme for ITPs on -devel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130330163435.GA6722@debian
