Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All mail on the debian-women list is public. Not all of their work is archived in public and they explicitly prohibit IRC logs, probably both for good root reasons IMO. What is they? debian-women contributors. Not all my work on gnucash is archived in public. Developers are free to talk about things they wish, with whoever they wish, in private if they wish. Of course. It is also rude and often illegal for me to repost private messages here without the authors' permission. I feel it is wrong to conclude that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Indeed, you only today told me to contact you off-list about your groundless DWN accusations. You are incorrect to call them groundless. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it possible to just chill out on the chicks? [...] It's just an example of some general problems (and not one I raised). Would you have a problem with blind Debianers creating such a list? Nazis or terrorists sure, but ladies!?! [...] For at least some of those, it would depend how they're chartered. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to prove there is something nefarious going on, you must *give the evidence*. The burden of proof is on you. I know. I'll prove it to people who will actually fix it. It will not help to publish more info here and will harm helpful people. Your accusations are groundless until you actually *give them grounds*. No, they have grounds anyway. I think you mean they're *unproven*. Geez, put up or shut up. I've stated what I will do, how and when. Stop misrepresenting and interrogating and I'll leave this thread alone. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Once again, your complaint is about a topic restriction, not a restriction on who is allowed to address that topic. Cool, so declaring all discussions and collaboration involving women off-topic for debian-www would be fine with you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But one example *cannot* demonstrate your point. [...] I was referring to DWN being one example of communication in debian. Nor, for that matter, does a Message-ID prove anything. You can't say or remember what's in that message, can you? Yes, it's the message about my first point, where Martin Schulze told me that in-project communication was never a goal of DWN. This exchange illustrates my fifth point: you do not know how DWN actually works and I don't think you can find out reliably. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Neither feels that the groups it reports on are their main audience. As far as I can see, the main audience of DWN is Debian developers, package maintainers, and other members of the community. This audience is exactly whom they report on. That's what I thought, too. Yet, when I mentioned that DWN wasn't working well for in-project communication, Martin Schulze told me that was never a goal of DWN. This is partly why I think the DPLs have to address internal communication, as it's mostly ad-hoc and no-one notices until it fails hard. [...] * They have friends who get puffed regularly, but good news stories about groups on the blacklist can get ignored and/or stuffed at the bottom of the issue. Huh? Which groups do you perceive as being blacklisted by DWN? Could it be that there are simply no readers of the relevant mailing lists who regularly report news to the DWN editors? Yes, the lack of reporters is the direct problem, but I suggest that it is caused by the editorial bias against certain groups. I'll let others enumerate groups they think don't get fair runs, as I'm not going to continue the DWN debate now. It was a side point, that debian-women were spending time imitating something which is not good internal communication. [...] * The editors take the traditional approach of completely ignoring most criticism and either accusing the complainer or trying to game them in the broken system. Huh? This accusation demands to be substantiated by references to mailing list posts where Joey or any other DWN editor accuses someone who complains about their editorial policy of trying to game them in the broken system. I may do that later, so for future: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] have an archive? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Topics resembling the DPL election, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, in which case I salute the innovative way in which you boldly post to -vote on topics bearing increasingly little resemblance to the DPL election. Sorry if I'm communicating it badly, but I think the debian-women problem includes all the hot topics of (at least): - internal project communication - secrecy/transparency and accountability - demographic representativeness - accidental exclusion - wider community campaigning All of which the DPL can influence, even if only by their speeches, and the specific issue is mentioned explictly in krooger's platform. Where do the other candidates stand on these topics and this issue? I think the other things important to me about the DPL are any effect on the release processes, public relations and delegations, but they're already being covered. You make me realise another thing: this is going badly and it's time to spend less time on it. The volume of email (both for and against) that I'm getting off-list on this topic is silly: I'm not running for DPL. Neither dumb flames nor messages of support are any help. Please can people who have emailed me off-list be brave enough to post to -vote if the topic is important enough to ask candidates to reply? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exclusion, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, it doesn't work that way. The translators come to the d-i and translation team and ask what they can do to help get it translated. I think this is tied up with the change of installer. It makes it a bit tricky to figure out who could have done anything. It just fell through the cracks. I believe DPL candidates should consider what falls through the cracks all over the project and whether any are worrying enough to address. Shouldn't they? So far, two candidates have contacted me off-list about this. I hope they'll post here when they've considered it. So, it is not that people think esperanto is not significant enough, but rather than nobody interested in esperanto cared enough early enough in the process to get it supported. I don't think some of us could tell what was early enough - even the ones who can use English as well. Is there anything we can do to avoid this sort of thing? Should language-specific communities be recommended to send delegates to other parts of the project? Routinely or should we just try to detect particular problems? Something like society-sector-is-MIA tests? I guess it is too late for rc3 or maybe even the sarge release now, but if you contribute or organize something it may still happen, at least for a point release. IIRC, we're told it's too late for sarge and will have to wait for the release after that! Maybe someone will point out that I'm wrong again, but if so, can the d-i translator page to be made clearer about this for simpletons like me? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, [...] That reminds me of one thing that has annoyed me during tbm's leadership (sorry tbm! You have done most things well): it has been very difficult to correct the bastard form of my name listed on db.d.o that was caused by a misconfigured mailserver years ago. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] address seems like an alias for /dev/null and the DPL directed a complaint back to it. This is why I suspect ftpmaster is a particular instance of some more general problem. At the moment, is there a constititional loophole that one can avoid tech-ctte overruling one (the only time complaints are mentioned) by never acting? 1. Will DPL candidates try to address delegate communication in general? Deal with each case individually? 2. How would the candidate deal with complaints? Is it part of the DPL's role, in your opinion? If not, whose? I note Branden's 2004 platform answers 2 in part and it's one of the few places complaint is found on the main web site. As ever, this is just a point-observation which might be wildly atypical. I don't really interact with DPL as DPL very often. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't find the new mentoring programme either. I remember being told some time ago that a mentor course would be announced, but now you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it. Oh my god, MJ Ray missed an announcement! Everyone, stop what you're doing, we need to announce something to MJ personally. Be serious. I'm subscribed to debian-announce and debian-devel-annouce, and I join and leave other lists as I get time to work in those fields. I'm a frequent visitor to the debian web site and its developer corner. I read planet.debian.net sometimes. If debian-women are so good at communicating, why don't I see it? It's entirely possible that debian-women's comms are brilliant and I'm doing something wrong, but I can't think what it is. Both their list and IRC judge you and if they consider you a troll then there is a secret silence against you [...] The sky is falling! A community has standards and is enforcing them! No, it's that that community's enforcement methods and secrecy should not allow it to be part of debian. We won't hide problems and all that. I'm told off-list that debian-women's lists and site have actually banned some dissenters. Is that true and how can I see the reasoning? [...] Notice that most of the points under how to avoid being sexist haven't actually been done yet. There are members of single-sex linuxchix chapters active in the subproject too. While it's Guilt by (tenuous) association. There's a Debian developer with white supremacist tendencies, too, does that make us all nazis? I've been labelled because I fit a similar description to others, so why not label debian nazi if there is a nazi DD? I think that shows the absurdity of some debian-women contributors. Myself, I'm worried by presence of white supremacists and will act against racial-discriminatory messages and actions, just as I'm worried by presence of female supremacists and will act against sexual-discriminatory messages and actions. I think it's a problem that most of the points under how to avoid being sexist haven't actually been done yet, while the other is merely a worry. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been labelled because I fit a similar description to others, so why not label debian nazi if there is a nazi DD? I think that shows the absurdity of some debian-women contributors. Could you please provide a pointer to this labelling? Sadly not directly. The public stuff is too vague and limited to the level of Who cares? about someone linking krooger's message to him being a white christian male. http://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2004/08/msg00093.html The reasoning was explained to me in private email by a debian-women contibutor, I think a bit before trying to out it in the above thread. Paraphrasing, I was told that I got a bad response partly because I contacted the subproject soon after krooger had (unsurprisingly, as it looks like he was replying to the same mailshot) and partly from crass phrasing on my part. I don't see why krooger's actions should affect my reception, other than we share some attributes (and only some). I hope that that contributor writes in public about this soon, to help improve debian-women, but I don't want to out helpful people. (Yes, I know I ought to check what stuff I was told in public before posting about it. I apologise for it.) -- MJR/slef Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are four points. Of those, three are being done already, namely ^^ the first [1],[2] third [3][4][5] and fourth [6]. There are many other such references on the Debian Women webpages and mailing list, as well as wider Debian webpages and mailing lists - this is a selection of initial information, rather than an exhaustive list. How this can be interpreted as most of the points under how to avoid being sexist haven't actually been done yet is beyond me. ^ I'm not going to continue the off-topic direction that you're trying to take this in, but I highlight the *tense* of what I wrote compared to your claim, question whether DWWN shows anything to the larger Debian community and wonder how you are avoiding being sexist with list charter and some web pages being women-only. I hope verb tenses aren't really beyond you. It's not you're never going to do this but I'm worried because it's six months on and still a discussion point. Then again, this thread already had a complaint that nothing useful would be done in three months! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Erinn Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005:03:04 14:07 +]:=20 If debian-women are so good at communicating, why don't I see it?=20 Because you refuse to subscribe to our list or read DWN for ideological reasons. I think you'll find many DDs aren't subscribed to your list or reading DWN. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian-women obscurity, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can list all the mailing lists and fora you read, but the point is that unless you watch the entire world's open communications, you will miss announcements. It's a fact of life. The choices for senders are, basically, to either have a single everything-announce mailing list/IRC channel/Jabber thing/Web forum/RSS feed/whatever other pet technology people like and send every possible piece of information interesting to somebody there, or else ensure that every possible piece of information of interest to somebody gets sent to every open fora on earth. Neither of those is conducive to useful on-going communication. Like those are the only two options, the two extremes. It does seem like debian-women is not particularly better at communication than most other parts of debian. Can't blame people for not seeing cool stuff if it's stuck away in an obscure backwater mostly unannounced. One of the challenges facing the DPL is to find happy medium levels of communication and methods to support that, I think. No, it's that that community's enforcement methods and secrecy should not allow it to be part of debian. Why not? The critical factor for inclusion in Debian appears to be a very occasional contribution to the development of a Free operating system. A bit of non-public discussion and enforcement of community standards doesn't even come close to crossing that line. [...] I am concerned that a debian-nazi list, encouraging development of debian by nazis and use of debian for nazi activities, would be seen as fine by the same sort of reasoning. I think there is a difference between allowing others to contribute or to take our work and use it however, without having to support that use with project machines. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, if someone thinks something should be in DWN, sending a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] really helps. It helps to get a reply a month later with inaccurate inflated rewrites. At least it helped for me everytime I wanted to have something covered. I'm glad it worked for you. I really consider your accusations against DWN harmful. Maybe. Call it revenge if you want, but please consider whether there's truth behind them or how one can tell. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aliases for /dev/null: Clarification about krooger's platform
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: I think it's far more important for people working on Debian to focus their attention on improving our operating system; if Mark J Ray is a correct variant of your name, no matter how bastardised, I don't think it's worth worrying about changing that to MJ Ray while there are things on the TODO list that effect development directly. I've had everything from refusals to sign my gpg key (3 or 4) to being misnamed in documents (twice) because of that error, all of which take time I could spend on Debian and the silence of [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes me dislike the project a bit more. It's not direct, but a happy project is a more productive project, yes? If a task isn't going to be done by a delegate, let it be done by anyone or explain the barrier on the help pages (like enable chfn on gluck). In general, even a we'll deal with this last from people would avoid DDs feeling in limbo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] could be hit by a truck, and it would make no difference to some: but how many? 2. How would the candidate deal with complaints? Is it part of the DPL's role, in your opinion? If not, whose? Every item in the bug tracking system is a complaint, OK, and what about the tasks not in the BTS? Should they be added? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exclusion, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Jonathan Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Why should the sex imbalance be seen as any more urgent than race, culture or any of the other tons of ways debian is demographically different? Debian already has a debian-women mailing list for discussing such issues. This indicates there is are real and widespread concerns among Debian members which have not been addressed yet. To give one example, I'm pretty sure language-specific debian user lists predate debian-women by some way, yet there is still an ongoing struggle to keep support for some languages in the debian project. The debian-installer developers are working on probably the single biggest improvement to debian access for years, making it easier to install, but some languages that were in the old installer are not in the new one and the list has been closed for the next release with very little warning or announcement. I think all the lost languages are simply because there were no d-i developers who use that language in touch with their user group, rather than any wrong-doing on d-i developers' part. After all, it's time-consuming to communicate in someone else's language and they're busy already. So, there's far more obvious exclusion produced by lack of language support than by using a wrong example gender in English. There are probably other examples of demographic difference in debian, yet krooger's platform only mentions the recent women campaign. Do the women get extra attention because they write English? Do DPL candidates have specific ideas on how to address other problems? What ones are addressable by the DPL anyway? [Margin note: cultural prejudice here suggests that language barriers would increase the proportion of women, but that's not at all the effect seen in debian, as far as I can tell. Either this varies by geography or is masked by other effects.] -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you saw no need to consult the people you named prior to including them in a list of appointees as to whether they would be willing to be a part of your little sham committee. So a committee of those people would be nothing other than a sham? Or are you trying to suggest that krooger hasn't learnt any lesson from his past interactions with them? Are you unwilling to work in any way with someone who you believe doesn't understand your view? Consultation with stakeholders *before* pushing them around might be a good step, don't you think? Can't help but agree that consultation would have been good and I thank you and Erinn Clark(I think) for pointing out it hadn't happened. Then again, the debian-women list members are very prejudiced in my experience and many ignore people they don't see as fellow travellers: would any of you have answered a Request For Comments or Call for Volunteers from krooger, honestly? Also, as we are so frequently reminded, the DPL can't push anyone into doing stuff, at least constitutionally. The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest journey begins without that single step! Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy to starting a journey. Depends if you put cushions or broken glass at the bottom. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
Ben Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for secrecy, I find your objections interesting. The debian-women project has been making great efforts to actively improve transparency of processes and access to relevant documentation throughout debian. They have? I thought they just posted bugfixes for using the wrong gender in examples. (Seriously, I've seen a bit more from reading blogs, but the bugs are the most visible act so far.) Immediate examples that come to mind include their detailed articles on the NM process, the new mentoring programme that they are developing and a growing collection of entry-level articles on packaging and bug squashing. Where are these articles posted? As a package sponsor, it could be a useful resource for me and my maintainers. I didn't find them anywhere obvious on http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ I didn't find the new mentoring programme either. I remember being told some time ago that a mentor course would be announced, but now you mention it, I don't recall ever seeing it. As for their own processes, they use a public mailing list, a public IRC channel, post regular summaries of off-list activity and have regular online meetings whose minutes are publicly posted. Their goals and guidelines are publicly available on their website. Doesn't entirely smack of secrecy to me. Both their list and IRC judge you and if they consider you a troll then there is a secret silence against you (again endorsed in the last IRC meeting, it seems). You don't have to fight flamewars with your critics, but you should respond to them, even if only dismissively. Hell, the effort I've put in to trying to persuade debian-women should suggest I'm not just trolling. If anything, it's debian-women who are carrying out classic troll asymmetric infowar on the rest of debian with their ignore those who don't agree approach. As to meeting minutes, I think posting them on a wiki on an alioth site and not bothering to link them into the meeting news item (directly or even within 3 clicks, as far as I can tell) is a bit better than putting them in a locked filing cabinet in an unlit downstairs toilet (and so on, go read Douglas Adams) but not much. It would do everyone good to read these minutes actually: http://women.alioth.debian.org/wiki/index.php/English/IRC16January2005 Notice that most of the points under how to avoid being sexist haven't actually been done yet. There are members of single-sex linuxchix chapters active in the subproject too. While it's unconstitutional for debian to demand that debian-women support other excluded groups, we should request this subproject stops discriminating. Their list charter still excludes purely on sex and it looks like being female is the only criteria for the Debian Women Weekly News (and do we need yet another publication modelled on the US tabloid Weekly World News?). In the detailed section, on the first question, it looks like debian-women still hasn't done basic research on the scale of the problem, overestimating the number of active DDs by about 150. That's a basic fact on every vote in http://www.debian.org/vote/ isn't it? (And no, there's not 1100 maintainers either, http://www.debian.org/devel/people suggests there are around 1400 of them.) I'll stop there, as it's not really useful to continue, but debian-women really looks like it needs slight reform, more people, more publicity and SMART action plans if it's going to do good work. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-limited.) And as for accountability: who do you want them made accountable to? Ah, the DPL, which would be.. well, you. Mmmm. Accountable != run by. The DPL can't force them to act and general exclusion/demography questions seem appropriate for the leader, don't you think? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:20:40PM +, MJ Ray wrote: The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest journey begins without that single step! Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy to starting a journey. Depends if you put cushions or broken glass at the bottom. Why don't you go shove a friend down a long flight of stairs with a pile of cushions at the bottom and see how that works out? I'm sure you'll find plenty of willing volunteers. I don't have enough cushions, nor a long enough straight flight of stairs. The metaphor is daft anyway. Asking people to form a committee is hardly comparable with pushing them down stairs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPI, was: Vote Robinson for DPL!
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be happy to do that, if there is some wider consensus (on -project perhaps?) that this would be desired, as opposed to unwelcome noise. I think it would be a good idea to announce it whenever there's a debian-related matter coming up, or at least quarterly. I have added this page to the site: http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings Thanks. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Nomination
Lucas Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second the dead camel and the entire population of Swaziland, not the=20 cheddar cheese. Unless 100 developers wish the cheddar cheese to run, of = course. Won't that happen anyway if they leave it out in the sun? I second the entire population of Swaziland for DPL. I won't sign this. You can just take my word for it. -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Ultimately the question still stands, have operations been repaired? I doubt anyone would take a yes here now, quite rightly. We need to watch and decide for ourselves. Would it have been better to let me execute a rapid and forceful reorganization of SPI's operations in order to set its house well in order? No and I think you've demonstrated why not very well. I would hope that there are laws against presidents doing that, but US company laws seem very lax to me. [...] Branden inherited a huge mess and the task was difficult but that doesn't change the fact that he failed at the task and blames everyone but himself. In SPI's minutes, I see Branden being appointed (September 2001), working for a while (to mid-2002), flagging up the problem (January 2003), trying to get help to deal with the problem (July 2003) and resigning (January 2004). I have seen him being a bit annoyed with the other people in the mess with him, but I can understand that. Can you tell me where to see him blaming everyone else? This seems similar to an earlier situation where a secretary was appointed, couldn't fill in past holes and resigned, although you didn't give any time between pointing it out and resigning. Maybe you gave up too quickly and Branden gave up too slowly? Also from the minutes, it looks like SPI was slowly failing from mid-2002. Branden was part of the board, but so were you. Who should we blame? Is there any point blaming anyway? Show me where he ever said I screwed up because I didn't do my job and it cost Debian a lot of money. A leader must take responsibility. Branden wasn't leader of SPI. You were. [...] Number one, Branden isn't ready to be DPL because he won't accept responsibility and he is not sufficiently organized. Can you substantiate that claim besides trying to blame him for the SPI bug? His packages don't seem to be worse than a few other people I've looked at, although it seems his upstreams aren't particularly cooperative. Number two, Debian needs to take some formal action with regard to assuring that the SPI role is executed properly. Whether that means killing SPI, reorganizing its staff or providing fault tolerant redundancy is an open matter. Not really a Branden/DPL issue, but more a DPL question in general: Will the DPL go to many SPI board meetings or appoint a delegate? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ean is right that Debian needs to be more active with SPI. I wish many more Debian developers were actively watching SPI. It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely. For example, I just looked for the next meeting date. I looked at http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/ and saw the meeting agenda for 1 February, where it was proposed that the next meeting is 1 February(?). I looked around the site and found the general meeting is on 1 July, but no date for the monthly meetings. I'm sure there's some page for members, but I didn't find a link to it on the membership page. Looking at spi-announce archives (Mailing Lists link), I didn't find it in there. Finally, I went into irc.oftc.net#spi and found it in the topic: Next Board Meeting is here on 1 March 2005 at 1900 UTC. I'll forward a copy of this to the webmaster address on the pages. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPI opacity, was: Vote Robinson for DPL!
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 03:08:52PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It would help if SPI announced its board meeting dates more widely. I do e-mail spi-general with the info about 2 weeks in advance. Why would I look for announcements on the list for General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest rather than the one labelled Software in the Public Interest announcements? [...] It's about time I learn how to edit the SPI site, I suppose. If you find out, please add it to the site. I have no idea where to send a patch against what to. I see the cookiemonster CMSes are discussed on spi-general, which would bar some, but it would be nice to know what's currently used to see if it's editable. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Please take this off debian-vote. [...] Please stop cc'ing me on list, at least. I read debian-vote. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] As I've said, I can be combative, irrational and mean tempered. At the same time, I was able to get a few years of accounting problems cleared up in a week or two. [...] Huh? If you cleared up the accounting problems, why did you come into this thread claiming that there are accounting problems? Did SPI undo all the process changes you put in place in another week or two? Maybe you cleared up some accounting symptoms but not the problems. I mean, that's good too, but who's fixing the problems you left? [...] I may be a pain in the ass but I do run a business and have a full time accountanting help. I also write ecommerce websites for a living. Fixing the SPI accounting is kiddie stuff. Sure, but you have no fine clue how to work with people you can't raise or fire, as far as I've seen. [...] When raising that argument he fails to include the fact that it took months for him to ship the paperwork even at my expense. Erm, *I* raised the argument and I didn't include that as I didn't notice mention it in the record. Wasn't there any problem with the president taking control of financial office? If not, I'll wait for some other of SPI board to comment. [...] Its only when it is neglected that the backlog becomes difficult to deal with. Even then, with an enormous back log, it wasn't that hard for us to iron out. How long was it neglected when Branden took the post? Can you substantiate that claim besides trying to blame him for the SPI bug? His packages don't seem to be worse than a few other people I've looked at, although it seems his upstreams aren't particularly cooperative. Well. I would like to make the bold distinction that hacking on software is not the same thing as maintaining a bureaucracy and that assumption is why we have failed to make SPI work again and again and again. Sure, fine. So no, you can't substantiate it beyond trying to blame the whole SPI thing on Branden? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Angus Lees for DPL
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby nominate Angus 'gus' Lees as Debian Project Leader (DPL). http://people.debian.org/~gus/ is less than stunning. Someone might want to look at that. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The obfuscation continues! Let's not get caught up in the actual problems I'm trying to put on the table. Let's stay focused on the fact that discussing mistakes and the efforts to correct them makes you persona non grata. When you were appointed President in July 2003, Branden had found an accountant to help with the work. From the minutes, it seems the SPI board did not revisit this topic before Branden's resignation is mentioned in January 2004. By May 2004, the apologies are being sent out. In general, status reports seem few and far between in the minutes. Aren't they meant to be part of the normal order of business under the SPI by-laws? As you were so happy to point out last summer, doesn't the president have some responsibility for checking SPI follows the by-laws? There do seem to have been problems with SPI. I don't think one member of the board can put the blame solely on one other member of it without clear evidence. At best, your abrasive hectoring conduct as SPI president did not seem to help. I don't think you should be so keen to raise this topic again. I don't think the SPI problems makes transparency and accountability any more or less of an issue in the DPL elections than it would have been otherwise. I would like to ask all candidates about them, but let's wait for campaigning to start. -- MJR/slef http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 21 February 2005 1:38 pm, MJ Ray wrote: [...] In general, status reports seem few and far between in the minutes. Aren't they meant to be part of the normal order of business under the SPI by-laws? As you were so happy to point out last summer, doesn't the president have some responsibility for checking SPI follows the by-laws? It is also the responsibility of the SPI President to see that records are accounted for properly and legally. However, it wasn't possible for me to do this because the new Treasurer (Jimmy Kaplowitz) would be told how to do his job. While I admire his chutzpah, his timing was not ideal. So, responsibility yes... capability no. [...] I'm not surprised you weren't capable of the bigger task of handling this crisis if you couldn't even complete the smaller task of routine meeting tasks that presumably existed before everyone took office. Hey, I suck! I'm the first to agree. That's why I didn't run as President again. Jimmy, Branden and the rest of the SPI team have now had a six month crack at sorting it out on their own without my badgering. That doesn't seem to have working well either. When there has been an emotional vampire sucking the enthusiasm out of the project, which is largely administrative anyway, it takes the patient a while to recover. From experience of other groups, I will be dead impressed if it's anything like working smoothly by July. I don't think the SPI problems makes transparency and accountability any more or less of an issue in the DPL elections than it would have been otherwise. I would like to ask all candidates about them, but let's wait for campaigning to start. I disagree. This is the first time SPI misplaced $18,000.00 of Debian's money. That's a pretty spectacular screw up. Without Debian's money and trademarks SPI is largely irrelevant. I think its all good food for thought. If the checks and balances were broken, this was an accident waiting to happen. Not necessarily your fault. What we can do is form an opinion on how you handled the accident. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] On occasion, nastiness can be very efficient no matter how much you wish it weren't so. [...] In a dozen years, I've not been part of a volunteer project where nastiness brought better results. Results are needed, but SPI's not a for-profit company to be bossed. Is Brainfood ironic? Bye. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote Robinson for DPL!
Ean Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I think it really embodies the professional tone and spirit that Branden brings to all of his endeavors and may help you when you are making your DPL decision. Are you still bitter that we don't love you after you made a meal of cleaning up after SPI treasurer resignations? Everyone makes mistakes. It's not about never making mistakes, but about learning from your own and those of others. I'm not sure that Branden handled the SPI situation he found himself in brilliantly, but it looks a lot better than it could have been. I think he's learned, although he has yet to learn about the damage that backstabbing IRC loggers can do. I don't think that you've learned about volunteer leadership from SPI and I wouldn't vote for you any time soon. Converselly, I'd like to see what Branden can do working for a larger project. I find your rephrasing of his words into personal attacks quite sad, though. I hope you find your object soon. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Force AMD64 into Sasrge
On 2004-07-20 18:29:06 +0100 Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's with the absurd pseudo-EU-government formatting? You realise it's normally used to make documents harder to read, and thereby discourage participation? I believe it's normally used to cram as much as possible within the 200 word limit rule for resolution motions, actually (EP rule 113). I challenge you to prove your allegations. I agree that it isn't ideal for debian developers. The proposal near the top of the email, followed by explanation, please. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-18 09:41:28 +0100 Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is the kind of thing you need in any GR long before I am willing to agree to it. You have lept to the GR strategy, failing to realize that the GR strategy should *presume* that you have done this work. This is my main problem with the proposal too. I suspect that some (all?) of other tactics have been used, but I am not voting on my suspicions over this. I am not going to work hard to gather the evidence because even the proposers are too lazy to do it yet, so this GR can't be that important. It smells like a platform-builder for future destructive criticism from amd64 DDs, although I hope I'm wrong on that. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A FIFO DAM, was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-17 18:37:17 +0100 David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 02:26:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Is queue-jumping desirable? [...] Yes, it's definitely desirable. For instance, a person maintaining an important library that a lot of other packages depend on, is more urgent to pass through than someone maintaining an umptisecond tetris-clone, text-editor or whatever... You cannot judge a person's future contribution solely by the package they maintain during NM. Although I am sure that people who adopt vital works and do it well are worth jumping in, I think if this is the source of the extreme weighting (and waiting!) that we see now, it will encourage maintainer churn with people adopting stuff just to get through NM and then RFA/orphaning it again. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A FIFO DAM, was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-15 22:09:35 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Really nice, but I already knew that. Now can you tell me what prevents FIFO processing? Doing it in FIFO would mean the DAM would not be allowed to start processing whoever's next before finishing up reviewing the one at the top of the queue. Surely that's FIFO approval, not FIFO processing? It seems reasonable that DAM could simply request the further explanation and requeue the DAMned NM. Then at least the NM would be able to see their progress in the queue and time in DAMnation becomes some sort of function of how troublesome the application is. [...] or could see someone in the queue whom he knows to be competent and valuable and would want to process first. Is queue-jumping desirable? It really sucks to see people (with questionable philosophies expressed on lists) getting through NM in 10 days while you're dangling there for months without being able to detect anyone doing anything about you. Feel free to move this to -project or -newmaint as appropriate, but please cc me on any -newmaint posts. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A FIFO DAM, was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-16 02:35:50 +0100 Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Feel free to subscribe to -newmaint (it's quite low-traffic) and comment on the AM reports of those applicants if you think they are not ready. The full AM reports are not posted to -newmaint, if I recall correctly, so it's hard to judge in all but a few vocal cases. Is there any evidence that any emails in support or question to -newmaint have effect on the process? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-14 13:45:35 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if I would be cited with a private off-hand remark, I definitly would stop to make private off-hand remarks to the person in question. Yes, understandable. I think this might be an example of what inspired James Troup to suggest that reign in its more vocal proponents would help amd64. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-14 18:03:28 +0100 Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm glad you have made it abundantly clear that ftpmaster had no intention to communicate about the amd64 issue at all. Alternatively, ftpmaster are not announcing vapour. Maybe you'd like to know what they are up to, but I'm not sure a GR can compel them to act like that and I think this is just driving them further into a bunker :-( Some people had been using our conversation that I mentioned as proof that ftpmaster can sometimes be reasonable. Who had? Why are so few of this GR's supporters substantiating anything they write? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-14 23:15:16 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James stated outright in the NM BOF at DebConf that he didn't delay people for asking about their progress. [...] Does he (or anyone) answer the queries? Was the NM BOF documented, or is this info only known to those who were in Brazil? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years -- branden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 13:43:59 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rationale: I'm sure, in principle, we'd like an amd64 release soon, but this looks incompletely explained. In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of your discussions with the release manager, release assistants, ftpmasters and technical committee directly. Can you include those, please? Finally, GRs seem to be very slow. Why is a GR a good tool for this? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 14:15:30 +0100 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In particular, your rationale doesn't give details of your discussions with the release manager, release assistants, ftpmasters and technical committee directly. In particular, what decision is this proposal trying to overrule? Or is it a nontechnical policy document or statement? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 15:03:47 +0100 Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you could suggest a preferable course of action for him to follow instead. Perhaps you could summarise what delegate's decision this GR is trying to overturn, for those of us only seeing this on -vote? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 16:18:34 +0100 Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The people actualy putting amd64 on hold are ftpmasters. And I don't think he can include any discussions with ftpmasters since all the mail sent to them on this issue made its way into /dev/null. OK, so the GR is seeking to overrule ftpmasters? Were these emails sent to them about amd64 cc'd anywhere public? I see in http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/07/msg00034.html a reported claim of up to 2 months before amd64 can get into the main archive. Advocates of this GR should note that the last 4 GRs have taken longer than that to be decided, let alone implement anything. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 17:10:38 +0100 Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] However, I want to make sure amd64 won't be dropped because of some random developer at a critical position not agreeing with that. I don't think you can really overrule a future decision, however much you want to. It seems similar to trying to fix bugs before they occur, I think. We might want to do it, but it's almost impossible. There's always going to be a different way the bug could be introduced. If you are trying to overrule particular past decisions, please include details about what the decisions are and, ideally, any public data on when and why they were made or even a note that there isn't any public data on that. Even just details of how you became aware of the bad decisions would help. The current form of the proposal looks arguably invalid. Please redraft it, or withdraw it if you think it's no longer the best way forwards after seeing Chris Cheney's report. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years -- branden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 18:27:58 +0100 Chris Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several of the points in the GR fall back to the ftpmaster never communicates and thus there are no emails to quote. [...] You should still be able to reference some email to ftpmaster cc'd to a lists.debian.org list or similar, IMO. Maybe ftpmaster isn't the only group failing to communicate properly with the rest of the project? -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
On 2004-07-13 22:48:28 +0100 Frank Pennycook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely it is not so much a technical issue as a policy issue? Then someone should explain why it is non-technical. Technical policy is not normally decided by GR. Since different opinions are being expressed, then in a democracy it would seem valid to decide it by voting. I have been told that debian is not a democracy. It just votes sometimes. [...] I can understand that these questions are controversial. I don't quite understand why the suggestion to vote on it is controversial. Most likely this is controversial because the proposed GR is ranty and unclear about what policy statement it is seeking to issue, or what decisions it is seeking to overturn. The rationale was missing basic data that is necessary for someone new to the subject to form an informed opinion about it. At best, it is botched in its current form and I hope that amendments from the people with the missing information are accepted. As ever, I am amazed by the stuff some people will second. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years -- branden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On 2004-06-25 06:15:22 +0100 Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:42:04AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: That's just so totally American. Now there's the ad hominem attack you keep referring to. Actually, it looks just plain offensive from here it's wrong, and typically American rather than personality-based you are American therefore wrong. Of course, both are rather stupid things to write, but I expect most sane people stopped reading this thread that tells no-one how their ballot should look like, long ago. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial... (Morrissey) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On 2004-06-24 08:31:49 +0100 Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, [...] Consequently, supporters of the last GR have been accused of gerrymandering because the vote ended up in spring break for some people. I would like to note in advance that this vote is at least as bad in that way, because the voting period is mostly in the summer break of many European universities. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On 2004-06-23 17:34:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] There was also nobody who pointed me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original SC. Sue me, English isn't my native language. [...] Personally, I apologise for the communications failures. Please help to remedy them and recover from them. Telling people that the way they interpreted the Social Contract is not valid, and therefore not even worth considering, seems very childish to me. Well, it seems to have been considered and leads to horrible inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On 2004-06-22 17:28:06 +0100 Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you accept this line of reasoning, the amendments that attempt to revert to the previous wording won't have any affect. If one views it that way, these changes will have an effect on the minds of certain developers, but that is all. Either sarge is releaseable in this sense or not, but that seems constant regardless of 03 and 04 outcomes. Some seemed already deeply unhappy with the sarge-ignore uses, before the editorial GR. There still seems little clear matter published on what effect the different possible sarge-release GR outcomes will have on the view of the RM, so I've voted as I thought best: F,A,C,B,FD,E,D -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal G (was: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003)
On 2004-06-01 09:19:15 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I propose the following amendment, replacing the entire text of the resolution: Don't you need to sign it? We know that, as with every guidelines, there are border cases were where not were. re-inforce the release policy that was valid prior to this date[1]. Of No hyphen in re-inforce. Probably other language bugs, besides the proposal being internally inconsistent. course, the Release Manager team is authorized to adjust the release policy. So, if this option passes, the RM could just revert it to the overruled one immediately? Why are people trying to load the ballot with null options? I'm probably being politically naive asking that, but I really don't get this. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Effect of GR 2004_003
On 2004-05-22 02:38:20 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually, he didn't. he was perfectly correct that software did not include documentation, fonts, device firmware or other *DATA*. Not at all. The inclusive one is the original and proper meaning, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a neologism created to cover *all* things stored in the computer, when the WW2-ish phrase stored program was not adequate. The first known use in print is John W Tukey in the January 1958 edition of American Mathematical Monthly, with a short and vague explanation as interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects, but contrasted with hardware. As with any neologism, it may have fuzzed a little, but the contrast with hardware (rather than data) is constant. Now, if you just want programs, you could just write programs (or stored programs). We already have a term for that. We don't need a perfect synonym for it. if he was mistaken, then why was there any need to change the SC? To stop people getting confused about this issue because of people who slavishly obey attempts to redefine our language. Think! Why would the mass media want the idea of free software not to cover their productions? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHP License 3.0 (was: oh)
On 2004-05-06 17:38:17 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PHP License, version 3.0 Copyright (c) 1999 - 2002 The PHP Group. All rights reserved. You may like to fix your autoresponder, PHP.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PHP License 3.0 (was: oh)
On 2004-05-06 17:38:17 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PHP License, version 3.0 Copyright (c) 1999 - 2002 The PHP Group. All rights reserved. You may like to fix your autoresponder, PHP.net
Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:
On 2004-04-29 10:29:12 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our official logo (that with the bottle) is non-free, because it is not free useable. (Failing DFSG #1, 4, 5, 6, 8.) The open use logo is non-free because the copyright licence restricts field of use (rather pointless to use copyright law to do the job of other laws). This is not a source code provision problem. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:
On 2004-04-29 10:29:12 +0100 Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our official logo (that with the bottle) is non-free, because it is not free useable. (Failing DFSG #1, 4, 5, 6, 8.) The open use logo is non-free because the copyright licence restricts field of use (rather pointless to use copyright law to do the job of other laws). This is not a source code provision problem. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list of ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here. You are not interested in anything besides back me or smack me? I'm interested in getting sarge's release schedule back on track in what I deem the most efficient manner possible. What are *you* interested in? Generally, a wide range of things, including avoiding games of Resolution Tennis and decision by attrition that I expect from unruly student unions, not Debian. You may think there is One True Way but it is likely that a significant number will be unhappy with your route and if they feel they had insufficient voice, this trouble will continue. Please interest yourself in being comprehensive, building consensus and healing the rifts. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate them, given your stated view. Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as written and want to see it to a vote, as written. We already knew that the minority in the last vote was far larger than 6, so this is unsurprising. Crossing the required number of seconds is part of the process and should not be the end of development. The proposer could still be reasonable. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully. The problems with making a distinction of not programs has been covered on -legal in the past. I also think written is an open loophole: for example, hand-crafted SVG is written material. (i) Standards documents, such as IETF RFC documents, published star catalogs, and certification test suites. These should not be invariant. Please see discussions of standards documents on -legal (I think the TEI discussion has some of the points, as well as some brain farts.) (iii) Opinion documents, such as the GNU Manifesto or position papers that have no technical content This would encourage endless arguments over what is technical content too, as if there weren't enough. 2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound files, and other non-program type files was dealt with by treating them as if they weren't software. Please substantiate this claim. Some may have deliberately refused to deal with these bugs, but they were still there. 6. This software was tolerated in the past in part because by their nature the four freedoms of software are not necessary, and are sometimes antithetical, for their support of free software (in the form of programs). This is retrospective continuity, dreaming up reasons. All software in debian should have the freedom to use, study, modify and distribute. Different softwares do not need different definitions of freedom, which is the apparent effect of all these this bit doesn't apply to this exceptions. 7. For instance, it is well known that open and public standards [...] Irrelevant. The standards groups could produce free software if they want. 8. At the same time, requiring the ability to create and distribute modified versions of open and public standard threatens the utility of the standard in the first place. [...] No, the ability to misrepresent your work or forge approvals threaten that and we already have those. They're just not legal ;-) accurate communication of opinions, it is important that everyone have the same text of the opinion so that the opinion does not get mistranslated or changed (intentionally or unintentionally). Therefore, we should make all these documents read-only, immutable and impossible to modify with a debian system, right? Absurd. Other reasons are ill-founded, but I do not wish to spend too much time on this non-proposal. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 04:26:53 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't believe, from following this list, that the reason the previous GR failed to be fixed was because the discussion period was cut short in the midst of serious progress. Irrelevant. The previous GR was discussed for some time, in draft and final forms. Yours has just appeared, dropped from the sky. I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list of ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here. You are not interested in anything besides back me or smack me? If you believe this particular proposal is ill-considered or wrong, please see paragraph one. So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate them, given your stated view. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 14:43:20 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:43:15AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I am not particularly interested in providing a comprehensive list of ballot options to cover all possible views of DDs, here. You are not interested in anything besides back me or smack me? I'm interested in getting sarge's release schedule back on track in what I deem the most efficient manner possible. What are *you* interested in? Generally, a wide range of things, including avoiding games of Resolution Tennis and decision by attrition that I expect from unruly student unions, not Debian. You may think there is One True Way but it is likely that a significant number will be unhappy with your route and if they feel they had insufficient voice, this trouble will continue. Please interest yourself in being comprehensive, building consensus and healing the rifts. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 14:47:31 +0100 Scott Dier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 10:43 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: So what? I expect you to reject amendments and refuse to incorporate them, given your stated view. Sorry, but 6 developers think this is a perfectly fine proposal as written and want to see it to a vote, as written. We already knew that the minority in the last vote was far larger than 6, so this is unsurprising. Crossing the required number of seconds is part of the process and should not be the end of development. The proposer could still be reasonable. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:
On 2004-04-28 23:19:40 +0100 Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Documentation and other written materials that are not programs are not required to meet guideline 3 [Derived works] fully. The problems with making a distinction of not programs has been covered on -legal in the past. I also think written is an open loophole: for example, hand-crafted SVG is written material. (i) Standards documents, such as IETF RFC documents, published star catalogs, and certification test suites. These should not be invariant. Please see discussions of standards documents on -legal (I think the TEI discussion has some of the points, as well as some brain farts.) (iii) Opinion documents, such as the GNU Manifesto or position papers that have no technical content This would encourage endless arguments over what is technical content too, as if there weren't enough. 2. In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound files, and other non-program type files was dealt with by treating them as if they weren't software. Please substantiate this claim. Some may have deliberately refused to deal with these bugs, but they were still there. 6. This software was tolerated in the past in part because by their nature the four freedoms of software are not necessary, and are sometimes antithetical, for their support of free software (in the form of programs). This is retrospective continuity, dreaming up reasons. All software in debian should have the freedom to use, study, modify and distribute. Different softwares do not need different definitions of freedom, which is the apparent effect of all these this bit doesn't apply to this exceptions. 7. For instance, it is well known that open and public standards [...] Irrelevant. The standards groups could produce free software if they want. 8. At the same time, requiring the ability to create and distribute modified versions of open and public standard threatens the utility of the standard in the first place. [...] No, the ability to misrepresent your work or forge approvals threaten that and we already have those. They're just not legal ;-) accurate communication of opinions, it is important that everyone have the same text of the opinion so that the opinion does not get mistranslated or changed (intentionally or unintentionally). Therefore, we should make all these documents read-only, immutable and impossible to modify with a debian system, right? Absurd. Other reasons are ill-founded, but I do not wish to spend too much time on this non-proposal. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking. Like normally is used in a vote-related discussion to get people to accept an assertion in the absence of evidence for that norm? Editorial has a sense of the editorial opinion column of a newspaper, too. I'm not saying what the intent was in this case, but anyway, someone voting on only the title may be voting randomly. Not much you can do about that. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but all kinds of software. Data is not necessarily computerised, so it seems odd to claim DFSG covers all kinds of it. Keep your corrupt definitions to yourself. You could have written that in a neutral way, but did not. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-27 22:27:28 +0100 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You were stunned, eh? Could you point me to teh message on -vote where you expressed your concerns? He already said he was stunned, so I assume unable to express anything beyond buh. Long time to be stunned, though. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for many this has been more than a simple textual clarification. Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple textual clarification. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without further cause for deliberation. I strongly suggest not mentioning the codename. It adds nothing to the proposal and in a really evil world may give a way to subvert 2004-003 forever. Already, your version may do that (if debian never makes another stable release), but it sounds like you are willing to accept some risk. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Debian Project, Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards, membership books and hymn sheets? Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky? Please can you work with Jeroen to ensure your back me or smack me proposal is covered in his offering instead? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second this proposal. Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fixed? Further discussion would be a really just vote for this sort of poor action. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-26 10:35:02 +0100 Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally, in a political vote, editorial change is used to get people to believe that a controversial change isn't, giving a minority a better chance to get their vote passed while no-one is looking. Like normally is used in a vote-related discussion to get people to accept an assertion in the absence of evidence for that norm? Editorial has a sense of the editorial opinion column of a newspaper, too. I'm not saying what the intent was in this case, but anyway, someone voting on only the title may be voting randomly. Not much you can do about that. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-27 21:09:06 +0100 Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] We've been argued a lot of times before that the SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. Rather, we've argued that it does not only handle pure programs, but all kinds of software. Data is not necessarily computerised, so it seems odd to claim DFSG covers all kinds of it. Keep your corrupt definitions to yourself. You could have written that in a neutral way, but did not. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On 2004-04-27 22:56:43 +0100 Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for many this has been more than a simple textual clarification. Alternative hypothesis: some people simply don't like the simple textual clarification.
Re: Amendment to Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 03:47:04 +0100 Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian Project, will be reinstated immediately after the release of the next stable version of Debian (codenamed sarge), without further cause for deliberation. I strongly suggest not mentioning the codename. It adds nothing to the proposal and in a really evil world may give a way to subvert 2004-003 forever. Already, your version may do that (if debian never makes another stable release), but it sounds like you are willing to accept some risk. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 02:41:35 +0100 Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Debian Project, Hello, is this a union motion? Where do we get the voting cards, membership books and hymn sheets? Seriously, why has this proposal just been dropped in from the sky? Please can you work with Jeroen to ensure your back me or smack me proposal is covered in his offering instead? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On 2004-04-28 03:33:54 +0100 Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second this proposal. Not picking on Joe in particular, but will there ever be a proposal dropped from the sky without discussion by a generally-known name that doesn't gain enough seconds for a vote before it can be fixed? Further discussion would be a really just vote for this sort of poor action.
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On 2004-04-17 01:21:59 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no, it's the loony extremists who want to throw out good software just because they don't have carte-blanche to modify the documentation that are being silly. For the definition: loony, adj - disagreeing with Craig. For one, I'm not arguing for no restrictions on modifications of docs. Just the same as we require for other software. I ignore the next bit of your message, irrelevant to me. and clause 4 applies too, which explicitly allows a modification-by-patch-only restriction. errata sheets are patches for documentation. The licence must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified sources, so we must be allowed to integrate errata into the built version of the docs during the making of the .deb. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On 2004-04-16 04:32:57 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 09:19:39AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in much doubt on it where's the GR and the vote? hasn't happened. where's the policy decision? doesn't exist. Now you're just being silly: where are the GR for all other licensing decisions? If you want to change how things are done, you probably need to write a GR (or you could just convince nearly everyone, but I can't that happening from such a low base). Until then, the DFSG apply to all software, not just programs.
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation. as i pointed out in my last message, the jury is still out on this topic. it has not been decided, so it is dishonest of you to pretend that it has been. Nevertheless, in the last relevant survey, only a very small minority objected to applying DFSG to all software, including documentation. Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in much doubt on it and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
On 2004-04-15 06:42:03 +0100 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 10:36:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: maintainers who think (presumably because of the nonsense puffed out over the years) that the DFSG doesn't apply to documentation. as i pointed out in my last message, the jury is still out on this topic. it has not been decided, so it is dishonest of you to pretend that it has been. Nevertheless, in the last relevant survey, only a very small minority objected to applying DFSG to all software, including documentation. Even if not decided unanimously, the jury doesn't seem to be in much doubt on it and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. I think there were some interesting points from both sides there (not that I agree with all of them), if you read them instead of ploughing them. However, your message is just a self-justifying rant. If you really think: My advice is Less Crap and More Code! ...then please practise what you preach. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. I think there were some interesting points from both sides there (not that I agree with all of them), if you read them instead of ploughing them. However, your message is just a self-justifying rant. If you really think: My advice is Less Crap and More Code! ...then please practise what you preach. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. And, how should i know ? Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you personally. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. And, how should i know ? Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you personally. The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited to -project. I don't understand you. You claim that the question is not worth asking and when I point out why it is, you speak bureaucracy. Personally, I think questioning a suggested way to bypass a current GR vote are probably on-topic for -vote. Don't start claiming otherwise just because you want it on a list that you don't read. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. And, how should i know ? Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you personally.
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-13 14:36:21 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 10:33:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-12 22:49:26 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:02:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. And, how should i know ? Maybe you don't. The question was sent to a list, not just you personally. The wrong list though, as i understand, this should be better suited to -project. I don't understand you. You claim that the question is not worth asking and when I point out why it is, you speak bureaucracy. Personally, I think questioning a suggested way to bypass a current GR vote are probably on-topic for -vote. Don't start claiming otherwise just because you want it on a list that you don't read. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which unnecessarly in non-free constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free. I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy. It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though. Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If that's OK, then filing replaceable by bugs against non-free seems not to achieve anything. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer that it's not worth keeping around. Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing out that the package is replaced by something in main, so the question is still interesting practically and not mere bureaucratic navel-gazing. One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some particular person culling everything they happen to think is pointless. One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. It immediately allows people to start crying don't you oppress me! -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 10:36:58 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:24:38AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did you fill a bug report against mpg123 asking for just that ? Is it a bug? Currently, there is no sense in my mind in which unnecessarly in non-free constitutes a bug. We have no policy, of any kind, which says that only necessary things should be in non-free. I don't understand you. You claim that all the packages in non-free should go, and when i point you out a method on how to do that, you refuse to do that and speak bureaucrasy. It seems reasonable to ask whether the maintainer can just close or ignore the bug as invalid before N people file M bugs against non-free with apparent replacements in main. Make sure that the package is indeed fully replaced though. Here we go again. mpg123 can resample output, while mpg321 supporters say another piece of free software can be used for that and it's better to do one thing well. Certain other non-free maintainers defend their package's user interface or IMO pointless extra options. If that's OK, then filing replaceable by bugs against non-free seems not to achieve anything. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-12 13:01:31 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Perhaps. But you're looking at this wrong: the question is whether the package can be replaced effectively enough to convince the maintainer that it's not worth keeping around. Sure, but that requires a different approach to simply pointing out that the package is replaced by something in main, so the question is still interesting practically and not mere bureaucratic navel-gazing. One of the good things about Debian is that we don't have some particular person culling everything they happen to think is pointless. One of the bad things about Debian is that we apparently have to resort to a GR to cull pointless or self-defeating things. It immediately allows people to start crying don't you oppress me! -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. [...] Acutally, it seems common that debian list subscribers personalise discussions. Your email is another example. I'm sure I read that using you a lot on-list means you should redraft before sending, or send it off-list. Sadly, I can't find that article now. I disagree with some people's views, but I usually don't know those people and will try to approach meeting them with an open mind. There are a few exceptions who I feel are too aggressive, though. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty in matching. Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user thinks our certain reputation for quality is. :-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swearing on debian lists, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 08:24:49 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to like (swearing) to the status of Universal Truth I suspect far more people dislike swearing. Subscribers are even asked not to use foul language on http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/ after all. It doesn't make me happy to be arguing against free expression, but that's a request from a group I respect (Debian). PS: as for respect, i reserve that for people i actually feel respect for. you disqualified yourself years ago. Please don't grind old axes in this debate. Really wildly OT, IMO. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-11 19:20:41 + Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: non-free.org is vapourware, and god know what standards of quality it shall have; Debian does have a certain reputation for quality that purely hypothetical organizations have difficulty in matching. Having just returned from a LUG meeting where I think I was the only DD present, I can tell you exactly what at least one former user thinks our certain reputation for quality is. :-/
Re: keep non-free proposal
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me: On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that upto now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen. Possibly, nobody wants to be that vindictive against a single maintainer who could quite easily question their selection as the first such case. Alternatively, Suffield's drop GR does it as a general principle. Maybe I am wrong and no non-free maintainer would take it badly if tech-ctte was asked to overrule them. We delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ... Do you have a case history to back that claim up? I thought it was delayed just because it was a shedload of packages, which take time to replace, so more debian time is devoted to working on a possible fix. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it. You first. Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned of the keep-non-free supporters. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
A couple of small points that seem interesting to me: On 2004-03-10 07:33:06 + Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we already have the possibility to do this. The technical comitte has the power to override the maintainers decision, it is just that upto now, nobody cared enough to take the steps needed to make this happen. Possibly, nobody wants to be that vindictive against a single maintainer who could quite easily question their selection as the first such case. Alternatively, Suffield's drop GR does it as a general principle. Maybe I am wrong and no non-free maintainer would take it badly if tech-ctte was asked to overrule them. We delayed only because it is the FSF, if it was anyone else ... Do you have a case history to back that claim up? I thought it was delayed just because it was a shedload of packages, which take time to replace, so more debian time is devoted to working on a possible fix. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
