Re: Question to all Candidates: we want more, aren't we?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 06:39:46PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm not sure why you think so, but I do acknowledge that this > is a hard thing to implement. Not wishing to oversimplify, this kind of strategy carries a high risk of conditioning the horse to walk *only* if there's a carrot in front of it. One could eventually argue that we are already in that situation and your proposal is only to change the kind of carrot. Thanks for your time and your answers. I think they provide a good glimpse of the kind of leadership you'd excert, should you be elected. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100402172739.ga9...@esk
Re: Question to all Candidates: we want more, aren't we?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:00:29PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I do not think it's part of the DPL responsibilities. I do > think that it's something that Debian needs and that doing it > with the DPL hat on is going to make it easier, it's not a > requirement (most stuff that DPL candidates list as stuff > they'd like to do, do not *require* being DPL, but it helps) IMO many people, including myself and other DPL candidates, agree with you regarding that this is something that Debian would benefit from. And as you point out, you don't need DPL status to do it. You say it would be easier if you were DPL. Why do you think this is the case? Put in a different perspective, of the things you mention, what's harder to do (and why) if you don't have DPL status? The questions are not purely rethorical: I do believe you are identifying a larger and more complex issue within Debian, one where there's — from my POV — no agreement about whether or not it is an actual *problem* in the organization and if it is, what the solution looks like. (and yes, you could argue that I'm bordering on the question of what do we need a DPL for, but I don't really want to go there) If we agree that these tasks do not need DPL status, and if you are *not* elected DPL, will you try to push forward the things you mention? > * Have a constant contest of bug-fixer-of-the-month and > bug-reporter-of-the-month. This means listing people and the > bugs they fixed and/or reported (I consider reporting GOOD bugs > a very important task for a good release). If possible, give > the winners of each month some prize (t-shirt, mug, etc), if > not possible, at least list them in a hall of fame page. Just for the record, I think this is a very slippery slope. Thanks, Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100401185218.ga2...@esk
Re: Question to all Candidates: we want more, aren't we?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:24:14AM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > One important example is fixing bugs. Developers spend quite a > lot of time fixing bugs, and most of the time you don't need to > be a DD to fix those bugs, anybody can help out fixing more > bugs. > > Another example is the non-code parts of Debian, like > documentation or artwork. Most developers don't have enough > time for, or maybe just don't care enough about, these areas; > we could definitely use the help of people that are not so > code-oriented in order to improve the overall Debian > experience. Since you bring it up... Simple question: How? (in case it's not clear: since you seem to think it's part of the DPL's responsabilities, how do you plan to attract people to help with these things?) Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100401155052.ga32...@esk
Re: Red-tops, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
Hi, reading some of the replies MJ[0]'s post has received, I feel it's necessary to express my opinion on some of the points. I wasn't going to at first in order to keep the noise down, but IMO some views and opinions expressed by DPL candidates have turned noise into signal. On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:26:20AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > * Neither feels that the groups it reports on are their main > audience. This might be a style issue or a perception issue, but I concur, nowadays I don't get the feeling that DWN is written _for_ developers even if most of topics deal with them. This has certainly changed over time and I don't recall it being always like this. *My* recollection is that DWN started as a sort of "digest" which would allow concerned parties to notice a discussion that could otherwise have gone unnoticed. It's certainly entertaining reading sometimes. > * Any item included in either has to be sexy enough to match > the red top and that means accuracy sometimes gets left out. > > * They are not afraid to pull cunning stunts like reporting > statements single-sourced from fairly new contributors as if > it's a consensus view of a group, or "inflating" articles with > inaccurate or irrelevant spin. This is my major gripe with DWN nowadays: it's not uncommon that it manages to find consensus where there's none! "Uh? We agreed on _that_? Really?" Sometimes after having read a discussion through the week and then reading the digest that shows up in DWN I get the feeling that I was reading a different discussion. It's the editor's prerogative, yes, but this feeling is much stronger with DWN than with, say, Kernel Traffic, perhaps only due to the fact that KT provides much more detailed views on a topic. > * 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. I wouldn't go as far as suspecting malice -- particularly after reading Martin's summary on how DWN gets out the door, but yes, it does sometimes read like that, too. > * 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. There is no recommended route > to seek clarification or retraction and those misrepresented > or injured just have to punt. I *suspect* that whatever gets perceived as "flamebait" won't get airtime (which is in general a good thing). Problem is that is seems as if the epidermic tissue has gotten thinner over the years and therefore the level for something to be perceived as flamebait (opposed to genuine, and probably valid, criticism) has dropped. But yes, I do get the feeling of some amount bias being present. It is _my_ feeling so don't bother asking me to cross-reference it for you. Marcelo [0] Yes, I'm using MJ instead of something else, contrary to what I asked for on this very list recently. That _is_ his nom the plum and MJ uses it consistently to the point of being known as MJ in this community. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exclusion, was: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:48:50AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Is that 65% for the d-i in the next release, or d-i current? That > still leaves a third excluded and d-i is *much* better than most, far > more widely translated more than most of debian. There's a lot of > other things to improve too. Without trying to downplay d-i's effort, my experience watching other users is that it is _extremely_ frustrating to have a program translated 90%. It takes only one question in a foreign language for the user to go "uh?". It is even _more_ frustrating to have all the installation routine happen in your native language only to be confronted by a mixture of English and your language once you actually begin using the system. What I'm trying to say in short is that, yes, the problem you pinpoint is very real beyond d-i, affects users on a daily basis and yes, I do think it is more important than gender neutrality issues within the project. I'm _not_ saying that gender issues are not important. > Which brings me back to the question: why should a DPL focus on > sexism more than language or other barriers to entry into debian? I don't think he should. Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > None of the individuals [...] Can we _please_ stop refering to people by their nicknames, IRC handles or whatever it is that you are using? It's bad enough to try and remember a couple hundred names, don't make it worse by adding a few hundred handles to that. Thanks, Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Second Call for votes: General resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 06:15:01PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > >> [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion > > That's wrong, voting for 7 means the voter dislikes all options, and > wants either some other resolution, or no resolution. "Further discussion". That option means you want to keep the discussion going. Unless there's an explicit "leave things as they are now", there's no way to express that you want "no resolution". Marcelo PS: In the national elections here, you can vote for someone, don't vote, leave your vote blank or invalidate it. There's a very significant difference between not voting, leaving the vote blank and invalidating it. Not voting doesn't change the outcome, and it means so much as "I don't care". Voting blank changes the outcome (blank votes are added to the option with the most votes) and means, for me, "I can't decide myself, let others -- the majority -- decide for me". Invalidating doesn't change the outcome, but goes into the record (from my POV there's a difference between winning with 40% of the valid votes and 40% of the emitted votes) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple > of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion. > > Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1]. > > There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds, > and there was a side discussion between Manoj Srivastava, Richard > Braakman, and some other folks about whether the DFSG and Social > Contract were separate documents or not (which was no more a failing > of amendment BR3 than it was of BR2, the amended form of Manoj's > proposal which ended up on the ballot as Option A). Ok, here's my vote: | - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | [ 2 ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 majority needed] | [ 1 ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 majority needed] | [ 4 ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 majority needed] | [ 3 ] Choice 4: Further Discussion | - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is that? Proposal B doesn't create foundation documents. It just defines a certain kind of documents that the developers as a body can issue and modify. In particular, it doesn't embed a list of documents with special status into the constitution itself. If for whatever reason a new document pops up which is to be considered a foundation document, a vote has to be held to modify the constitution. The vote will end up being something like "ratify Document Foo and amend the constitution to include it in the list of foundation documents". If Document Foo is not regarded as a foundation document it's not "critical to the Project's mission". I don't know which kind of document this would be. Certainly not something as the policy, since holding a vote to ratify something that would be laughable and counterproductive. So what's the point of having foundation documents? Proposal B is the least intrusive change and keeps close to the original formulation, which IMO already said what Proposal B stated. Proposal A defines foundation documents, creates its list and includes the SC and the DFSG as foundation documents. If people really want the extra bureaucracy, that's fine with me. I'm really more interested in the ability to modify the SC. Proposal C does the same thing, but doesn't include the DFSG in this list. If it really comes to choosing between 3:1 or not, I want equity. If the SC requires 3:1, I want the DFSG to require the same. Why 2143 instead of 2134? Because I prefer having further discussion on Proposal C rather than accept it as it is (where further discussion means "convince me it's a good idea, I don't think it is"). Should the project had gone bonkers and a majority of voters had ranked C over A and B I didn't want to contribute to a 3:1 majority for that option. I wasn't sure if under the constitution that made a difference, I didn't had the chance to check (for whatever reason apt-cache search constitution didn't result anything at the time) and I had delayed my vote too much already (because of having my GPG key stored elsewhere). I just played it safe from my POV. > Can people *really* prefer "further" discussion when they do not > avail themselves of any discussion in the first place? Think about > the literal meaning of ranking the preferences that way. "I'd rather > see further discussion of this subject than see Proposal Q > implemented." Yes, that's what it means. > That doesn't leave people a way to say "hell no, I oppose Proposal Q, > and, for that matter, no amount of further discussion will persuade > me, so I'd rather not see that either". In such a case, the right > thing to do under the Condorcet Method as I understand it is to leave > both "Proposal Q" and "further discussion" unranked. If there was a choice of "hell, no" I would have ranked it over C, that's right, but: > But strategic voters won't do that, because they can disadvantage an > actively disliked option more by ranking it below "the default > option", which is a Debian innovation. That's right, too. > These extra data reinforce my suspicion that the Condorcet Method is > best understood as understood as a technique for selecting among > candidates for office. As a legislative technique, it may be a poor > fit, at least as we currently implement it, for the problem space. Might be. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with miscounted ballots, as it happened a few DPL elections ago, but since that didn't change the outcome, I was fine with that, too. And ballots are being counted as documented now, so I'm ok with that. > There may be ways to rectify the problems I perceive by modifying the > SRP itself, in conjunction with eliminating the default option, but my > thoughts in this area are not well-developed yet. Two factors I am > trying to keep in mind are: 1) limitations on the amount of labor the > Project Secretary can be expe
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple > of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion. > > Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1]. > > There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds, > and there was a side discussion between Manoj Srivastava, Richard > Braakman, and some other folks about whether the DFSG and Social > Contract were separate documents or not (which was no more a failing > of amendment BR3 than it was of BR2, the amended form of Manoj's > proposal which ended up on the ballot as Option A). Ok, here's my vote: | - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | [ 2 ] Choice 1: Proposal A [3:1 majority needed] | [ 1 ] Choice 2: Proposal B [3:1 majority needed] | [ 4 ] Choice 3: Proposal C [3:1 majority needed] | [ 3 ] Choice 4: Further Discussion | - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is that? Proposal B doesn't create foundation documents. It just defines a certain kind of documents that the developers as a body can issue and modify. In particular, it doesn't embed a list of documents with special status into the constitution itself. If for whatever reason a new document pops up which is to be considered a foundation document, a vote has to be held to modify the constitution. The vote will end up being something like "ratify Document Foo and amend the constitution to include it in the list of foundation documents". If Document Foo is not regarded as a foundation document it's not "critical to the Project's mission". I don't know which kind of document this would be. Certainly not something as the policy, since holding a vote to ratify something that would be laughable and counterproductive. So what's the point of having foundation documents? Proposal B is the least intrusive change and keeps close to the original formulation, which IMO already said what Proposal B stated. Proposal A defines foundation documents, creates its list and includes the SC and the DFSG as foundation documents. If people really want the extra bureaucracy, that's fine with me. I'm really more interested in the ability to modify the SC. Proposal C does the same thing, but doesn't include the DFSG in this list. If it really comes to choosing between 3:1 or not, I want equity. If the SC requires 3:1, I want the DFSG to require the same. Why 2143 instead of 2134? Because I prefer having further discussion on Proposal C rather than accept it as it is (where further discussion means "convince me it's a good idea, I don't think it is"). Should the project had gone bonkers and a majority of voters had ranked C over A and B I didn't want to contribute to a 3:1 majority for that option. I wasn't sure if under the constitution that made a difference, I didn't had the chance to check (for whatever reason apt-cache search constitution didn't result anything at the time) and I had delayed my vote too much already (because of having my GPG key stored elsewhere). I just played it safe from my POV. > Can people *really* prefer "further" discussion when they do not > avail themselves of any discussion in the first place? Think about > the literal meaning of ranking the preferences that way. "I'd rather > see further discussion of this subject than see Proposal Q > implemented." Yes, that's what it means. > That doesn't leave people a way to say "hell no, I oppose Proposal Q, > and, for that matter, no amount of further discussion will persuade > me, so I'd rather not see that either". In such a case, the right > thing to do under the Condorcet Method as I understand it is to leave > both "Proposal Q" and "further discussion" unranked. If there was a choice of "hell, no" I would have ranked it over C, that's right, but: > But strategic voters won't do that, because they can disadvantage an > actively disliked option more by ranking it below "the default > option", which is a Debian innovation. That's right, too. > These extra data reinforce my suspicion that the Condorcet Method is > best understood as understood as a technique for selecting among > candidates for office. As a legislative technique, it may be a poor > fit, at least as we currently implement it, for the problem space. Might be. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with miscounted ballots, as it happened a few DPL elections ago, but since that didn't change the outcome, I was fine with that, too. And ballots are being counted as documented now, so I'm ok with that. > There may be ways to rectify the problems I perceive by modifying the > SRP itself, in conjunction with eliminating the default option, but my > thoughts in this area are not well-developed yet. Two factors I am > trying to keep in mind are: 1) limitations on the amount of labor the > Project Secretary can be expe
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Consider the "amendment" (in name only), > >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to > >produce a distribution." > > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or > replace the text of the resolution with that? Gosh. Have you been reading the thread you are replying to? By now it should be obvious (to anyone paying even only half attention) what Steve meant. The question is simple: "is there really a hole in the voting system and is it exploitable?" Branden thinks there is one (and until now noone seems to have said otherwise -- unless I missed the message in the noise, that is and modulo Manoj who's said he's going to manually handle each attack) and that it is in fact open to exploits, if you are determined enough to do so. > > And the Project Secretary has indicated he would use his > > Constitutional power to prevent orthogonal ballot options from > > being voted on together, to thwart any such attempts to subvert the > > system. Which reduces the scope of this vulnerability to "How you, > > the Project Secretary, and four of your friends can kill any GR." > > :) > > Options that say nothing other than "We'll keep doing what we've always > done", whether that be "maintaining a distribution" or "supporting i386" > are just explicit "status quo" options by another name. There's nothing > interesting here. Grrr... -- Marcelo
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Consider the "amendment" (in name only), > >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to > >produce a distribution." > > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or > replace the text of the resolution with that? Gosh. Have you been reading the thread you are replying to? By now it should be obvious (to anyone paying even only half attention) what Steve meant. The question is simple: "is there really a hole in the voting system and is it exploitable?" Branden thinks there is one (and until now noone seems to have said otherwise -- unless I missed the message in the noise, that is and modulo Manoj who's said he's going to manually handle each attack) and that it is in fact open to exploits, if you are determined enough to do so. > > And the Project Secretary has indicated he would use his > > Constitutional power to prevent orthogonal ballot options from > > being voted on together, to thwart any such attempts to subvert the > > system. Which reduces the scope of this vulnerability to "How you, > > the Project Secretary, and four of your friends can kill any GR." > > :) > > Options that say nothing other than "We'll keep doing what we've always > done", whether that be "maintaining a distribution" or "supporting i386" > are just explicit "status quo" options by another name. There's nothing > interesting here. Grrr... -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question for all candidates
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:02:09PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Also, it would show me that the project actually thinks that the > tasks I listed in my platform are important, and that the project > stands behind what I'm doing. I must have missed the memo. Since when does this project work like that? Last time I checked, the way we do a lot of the things you mention in your platform was by rolling up your sleeves and start working. If "the project actually thinks that the task [you are doing] are important" people join you in your effort. For example: * "First, I think there are several problems with the sponsorship system. There is no listing of sponsored people and hence it is quite hard to keep track of them." Obviously good and obviously backed up by QA people. No need whatsoever to be DPL to get this going. * "Second, I will re-introduce the New Maintainer postings." Obviously backed up by several people. More than once people have asked what happened with this. No need to DPL status either. Only a good working relationship with the NM admin people is needed. If DPL status is required for that, we might as well pack our stuff and go home. * "Third, I intend to put more focus on inactive developers." I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Again, certainly backed up by QA people. * "The web site is too impersonal" (bug#76187) Why would anyone need to run for DPL to get such a thing done? This is examplary of "roll up your sleeves and do it". As you put it yourself "as DPL, I will encourage similar efforts. You don't have to be DPL to get things done." Exactly. That's the way this project works. On the rest of the section entitled "internal functions" you resort to hand waving arguments revolving arround the idea of "face to face contact", which might or might not be a really good thing. My personal impression from your platform is that you take that imagery of "the fearless leader" too seriously. That kind of leader, the one that's cheered up by the masses when he makes personal appearences, is surely a good thing for fun (and therefore motivational) value, but that's rarely the kind of leader that gets to office by means of a vote. If I had to write an abstract for your platform, it would include the phrase "personal contact is the basis for good teamwork", since that's, after a couple of readings, the meat of your argument. In short, I'm still missing the answer to "what would make Michlmayr a better D*PL* than Bdale or Branden?" (No, I didn't forget Moshe) Cheers, -- Marcelo
Re: A question for all candidates
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 05:02:09PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Also, it would show me that the project actually thinks that the > tasks I listed in my platform are important, and that the project > stands behind what I'm doing. I must have missed the memo. Since when does this project work like that? Last time I checked, the way we do a lot of the things you mention in your platform was by rolling up your sleeves and start working. If "the project actually thinks that the task [you are doing] are important" people join you in your effort. For example: * "First, I think there are several problems with the sponsorship system. There is no listing of sponsored people and hence it is quite hard to keep track of them." Obviously good and obviously backed up by QA people. No need whatsoever to be DPL to get this going. * "Second, I will re-introduce the New Maintainer postings." Obviously backed up by several people. More than once people have asked what happened with this. No need to DPL status either. Only a good working relationship with the NM admin people is needed. If DPL status is required for that, we might as well pack our stuff and go home. * "Third, I intend to put more focus on inactive developers." I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Again, certainly backed up by QA people. * "The web site is too impersonal" (bug#76187) Why would anyone need to run for DPL to get such a thing done? This is examplary of "roll up your sleeves and do it". As you put it yourself "as DPL, I will encourage similar efforts. You don't have to be DPL to get things done." Exactly. That's the way this project works. On the rest of the section entitled "internal functions" you resort to hand waving arguments revolving arround the idea of "face to face contact", which might or might not be a really good thing. My personal impression from your platform is that you take that imagery of "the fearless leader" too seriously. That kind of leader, the one that's cheered up by the masses when he makes personal appearences, is surely a good thing for fun (and therefore motivational) value, but that's rarely the kind of leader that gets to office by means of a vote. If I had to write an abstract for your platform, it would include the phrase "personal contact is the basis for good teamwork", since that's, after a couple of readings, the meat of your argument. In short, I'm still missing the answer to "what would make Michlmayr a better D*PL* than Bdale or Branden?" (No, I didn't forget Moshe) Cheers, -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates
Hi, > > 4. The DAM is : > > > > [x] a critical part of our infrastructure > > [ ] guilty of not rejecting people when they deserve to be > > That's possible, but I'm not sure it should really be the DAMs job to > exercise a veto on an NM candidate that has otherwise passed the > process. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "exercising a veto"? Does that have any concrete implications or specific actions associated with it? In your opinion, is it ok for an application to take a year before it's fully processed, meaning, the applicant is either rejected or he gets his account? Where do you draw the line? Half a year is not ok but three months is? What do you think is or could be the role of the DPL in this? During the last week or so, a bunch of people have gotten their accounts created, after some months of stall. This is not the first time the process has stalled. In your opinion, is there a way to prevent this from happening in the future? What do you think about the fact that for all visible purposes there's a single person acting as Developer Account Manager? Is that a model that you agree with? > > [ ] too powerful, refusing to add some packages when > > the license was ok (example: apt-i18n a few months ago) is a > > shame. > > I can't really agree with this one either. Even if one feels that > apt-i18n was a bad call, that doesn't mean the FTP admins shouldn't > have the corresponding power. People are occasionally going to > disagree on specific decisions, just as they do with package > maintainers. My impression is that the question went along the lines of "should ftpmaster have the power to veto packages based on criteria other than DFSG-complainness" You can of course take the example to the extreme and ask if the ftpmasters should veto rm-rf (Description: upon installation this package with call 'rm -rf /' as root) from entering to the archive. I think the answer is obvious in that case (yes). The question applies to more realistic cases: what happens if someone decides to upload glibc-cvs... oh, bad example ;-) but I think you get the idea. I think the general point is that the organization page lists a lot of people in specific teams, but it doesn't say what these teams can actually do or can't do. Take for example the Security Team. Where does it say that the Security Team can make NMU without contacting the maintainer beforehand? The question is _not_ if you agree or don't agree with that policy. I'm also _not_ saying that there should be a listing of these teams' "powers", a list that can be thrown at them when they don't stick to it. The question is what do you think about that. If you wish, the question is how much bureaucratization do _you_ think is too much bureaucratization. > [2] Hello, Mr. President. LOL Marcelo
Re: Questions for all candidates
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I will add that, since the Release Manager is a delegate of the DPL, one > of the first things I'd be doing in office would be asking the RM, "so, > what's the lay of the land?" Why don't you ask right now? (I'm serious) I mean, what's the difference about asking as a developer and asking as the DPL? It's not as if asking as the DPL will make the answer be different, is it? -- Marcelo
Re: Questions for all candidates
Hi, > > 4. The DAM is : > > > > [x] a critical part of our infrastructure > > [ ] guilty of not rejecting people when they deserve to be > > That's possible, but I'm not sure it should really be the DAMs job to > exercise a veto on an NM candidate that has otherwise passed the > process. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "exercising a veto"? Does that have any concrete implications or specific actions associated with it? In your opinion, is it ok for an application to take a year before it's fully processed, meaning, the applicant is either rejected or he gets his account? Where do you draw the line? Half a year is not ok but three months is? What do you think is or could be the role of the DPL in this? During the last week or so, a bunch of people have gotten their accounts created, after some months of stall. This is not the first time the process has stalled. In your opinion, is there a way to prevent this from happening in the future? What do you think about the fact that for all visible purposes there's a single person acting as Developer Account Manager? Is that a model that you agree with? > > [ ] too powerful, refusing to add some packages when > > the license was ok (example: apt-i18n a few months ago) is a > > shame. > > I can't really agree with this one either. Even if one feels that > apt-i18n was a bad call, that doesn't mean the FTP admins shouldn't > have the corresponding power. People are occasionally going to > disagree on specific decisions, just as they do with package > maintainers. My impression is that the question went along the lines of "should ftpmaster have the power to veto packages based on criteria other than DFSG-complainness" You can of course take the example to the extreme and ask if the ftpmasters should veto rm-rf (Description: upon installation this package with call 'rm -rf /' as root) from entering to the archive. I think the answer is obvious in that case (yes). The question applies to more realistic cases: what happens if someone decides to upload glibc-cvs... oh, bad example ;-) but I think you get the idea. I think the general point is that the organization page lists a lot of people in specific teams, but it doesn't say what these teams can actually do or can't do. Take for example the Security Team. Where does it say that the Security Team can make NMU without contacting the maintainer beforehand? The question is _not_ if you agree or don't agree with that policy. I'm also _not_ saying that there should be a listing of these teams' "powers", a list that can be thrown at them when they don't stick to it. The question is what do you think about that. If you wish, the question is how much bureaucratization do _you_ think is too much bureaucratization. > [2] Hello, Mr. President. LOL Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:56:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I will add that, since the Release Manager is a delegate of the DPL, one > of the first things I'd be doing in office would be asking the RM, "so, > what's the lay of the land?" Why don't you ask right now? (I'm serious) I mean, what's the difference about asking as a developer and asking as the DPL? It's not as if asking as the DPL will make the answer be different, is it? -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This year we are using a new method of properly determining > concordcet ballots using the Cloneproof SSD method. The script that > calculates this is appended below. Thanks for the clarification Manoj. I see the script does work as discussed. My only remaining question is if the script that parses the vote does indeed handle [] correctly. In a previous message it was asserted it didn't. I know from previous elections that it does. Thanks again, -- Marcelo | "Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on drugs." | -- Susan, the ultimate sensible governess |(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather) pgpEwnWXwKbIX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) Your candidate > 2) None of the above > 3 and 4) The other two This is actually incorrect. That means you prefer one of the the other two over the other, which might seem irrelevant, but under this voting system makes a difference. If you take a look at the script Manoj posted you'll notice the proper way of doing this is: 1) Your preference 2) None of the above [blank] the other two (or rank the other two equally and below "none of the above", but that feels messy) -- Marcelo | One day a tortoise will learn how to fly. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This year we are using a new method of properly determining > concordcet ballots using the Cloneproof SSD method. The script that > calculates this is appended below. Thanks for the clarification Manoj. I see the script does work as discussed. My only remaining question is if the script that parses the vote does indeed handle [] correctly. In a previous message it was asserted it didn't. I know from previous elections that it does. Thanks again, -- Marcelo | "Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on drugs." | -- Susan, the ultimate sensible governess |(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather) msg01600/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) Your candidate > 2) None of the above > 3 and 4) The other two This is actually incorrect. That means you prefer one of the the other two over the other, which might seem irrelevant, but under this voting system makes a difference. If you take a look at the script Manoj posted you'll notice the proper way of doing this is: 1) Your preference 2) None of the above [blank] the other two (or rank the other two equally and below "none of the above", but that feels messy) -- Marcelo | One day a tortoise will learn how to fly. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you want to select one person, and leave the rest equally, you > > could put a "1" for the person (or thing) you like, and mark the > > rest as "2". > [...] > unacceptable blank. Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't > repeat. To vote "no, no matter what" do not leave an option > [...] I'd also appreciate a clarification regarding this, preferably from Manoj himself. It is my intention to vote that way and this time I'd like my vote to be counted in the way I intended... -- Marcelo | Carrot was two metres tall but he'd been brought up as [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a dwarf, and then further up as a human. | -- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the debian project leader election 2002
>> Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you want to select one person, and leave the rest equally, you > > could put a "1" for the person (or thing) you like, and mark the > > rest as "2". > [...] > unacceptable blank. Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't > repeat. To vote "no, no matter what" do not leave an option > [...] I'd also appreciate a clarification regarding this, preferably from Manoj himself. It is my intention to vote that way and this time I'd like my vote to be counted in the way I intended... -- Marcelo | Carrot was two metres tall but he'd been brought up as [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a dwarf, and then further up as a human. | -- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sourceforge Site for Debian
>> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's so long ago that I didn't remember about that. :-) In fact, I'm not > sure that SF is useful as a general todo list ... it provides such > features (various trackers) for each individual project however. Well, yes. SF (as a project hosting site) for developer's would be something nice to have, specially since I don't feel comfortable using the real thing (VA has changed the rules of the game too many times already), but I feel a well organized project management thingy (for "internal" stuff) would do Debian much good. -- Marcelo
Re: Sourceforge Site for Debian
>> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's so long ago that I didn't remember about that. :-) In fact, I'm not > sure that SF is useful as a general todo list ... it provides such > features (various trackers) for each individual project however. Well, yes. SF (as a project hosting site) for developer's would be something nice to have, specially since I don't feel comfortable using the real thing (VA has changed the rules of the game too many times already), but I feel a well organized project management thingy (for "internal" stuff) would do Debian much good. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sourceforge Site for Debian
>> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The explanation is that "Sourceforge for Debian" was of very little > interest for me several months ago, it's only once you suggested me > the idea (it's due to you this item in my project), that I considered > it and thought about the advantages it could bring us. I'm either missing context or misunderstanding something. "Sourceforge for Debian" was something we discussed (we as in "I said that and you were present") about two years ago in Bourdeaux. Back then we were having a panel where the point at hand was how to keep people informed of what's in the project's todo list so to speak. The idea is that any developer can say "I have some spare time, what can I do?" There are severel todo lists, or kind of, namely the release critical bug list and the WNPP list. But there's more work that just those two things. There are more "subprojects" within the project. Some are real subprojects (apt-whatever, the install thing, the web pages, ...) and some are not real subprojects (wnpp, rc bugs, qa, ...). Some are more than subprojects (Debian Jr., Debian-Med). The point is that some kind of infraestructure is needed to track thigs than need to be done, but in a way that's a) accesible to developers in a *simple* way (~/funky/names is not simple) b) modifiable (with or without ACLs) by others so that people can say "I take this", "This is done", "nope, can't do it". In other words: a project management tool. SourceForge is, to some degree, such a thing. Two years ago SF was in fact the thing that seemed most appropiate for this kind of stuff (free, maintained, tested, most of the functionality is there). -- M.
Re: Sourceforge Site for Debian
>> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The explanation is that "Sourceforge for Debian" was of very little > interest for me several months ago, it's only once you suggested me > the idea (it's due to you this item in my project), that I considered > it and thought about the advantages it could bring us. I'm either missing context or misunderstanding something. "Sourceforge for Debian" was something we discussed (we as in "I said that and you were present") about two years ago in Bourdeaux. Back then we were having a panel where the point at hand was how to keep people informed of what's in the project's todo list so to speak. The idea is that any developer can say "I have some spare time, what can I do?" There are severel todo lists, or kind of, namely the release critical bug list and the WNPP list. But there's more work that just those two things. There are more "subprojects" within the project. Some are real subprojects (apt-whatever, the install thing, the web pages, ...) and some are not real subprojects (wnpp, rc bugs, qa, ...). Some are more than subprojects (Debian Jr., Debian-Med). The point is that some kind of infraestructure is needed to track thigs than need to be done, but in a way that's a) accesible to developers in a *simple* way (~/funky/names is not simple) b) modifiable (with or without ACLs) by others so that people can say "I take this", "This is done", "nope, can't do it". In other words: a project management tool. SourceForge is, to some degree, such a thing. Two years ago SF was in fact the thing that seemed most appropiate for this kind of stuff (free, maintained, tested, most of the functionality is there). -- M. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions for the candidates
Hi everyone, A couple of questions for the candidates: 1. The project's main goal is to produce a 100% free operating system, and in my opinion we are doing quite well in that respect. But the question of *how* this goal is achieved is seldom posed. In particular, I have the feeling that Debian is at times not as open as it could or should be. What I mean by this is that, for an outsider, figuring out how Debian works might be possible but it won't be easy: there's too much information hiding in too many places. "Insiders" have a problem, too. Even if public places is where most of the Debian-related discussion takes place, some of them are as public as a restaurant or a park is: everyone is allowed to go there, but not many people will be able to take part in the discussion process. Two or three people arguing about a topic and reaching a decision about it leaves 500+ other people in the dark. Even if the decision is made public, not having the discussion readly available hinders other's ability to understand the conclusion and embrace it. With that as an starting point, do you have any opinions regarding this topic? Do you regard Debian as an "open enough" organization, or do you think there's room for improvement? 2. Historically Debian has had project leaders varying between two extrema: those who were very vocal and could be seen constantly participating in a productive way in several internal and external fora and those who tended to take part in discussions to make succint statements regarding their opinion of the subject at hand. Both styles highlited good and bad characteristics to have in a leader for a project like Debian. Between these two cases, what kind of leadership do you foresee yours to be? Thanks, -- Marcelo | "If you put butter and salt on it, it tastes like salty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | butter." | -- Popcorn comes to the Discworld |(Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures) pgpg23Kns04jn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Questions for the candidates
Hi everyone, A couple of questions for the candidates: 1. The project's main goal is to produce a 100% free operating system, and in my opinion we are doing quite well in that respect. But the question of *how* this goal is achieved is seldom posed. In particular, I have the feeling that Debian is at times not as open as it could or should be. What I mean by this is that, for an outsider, figuring out how Debian works might be possible but it won't be easy: there's too much information hiding in too many places. "Insiders" have a problem, too. Even if public places is where most of the Debian-related discussion takes place, some of them are as public as a restaurant or a park is: everyone is allowed to go there, but not many people will be able to take part in the discussion process. Two or three people arguing about a topic and reaching a decision about it leaves 500+ other people in the dark. Even if the decision is made public, not having the discussion readly available hinders other's ability to understand the conclusion and embrace it. With that as an starting point, do you have any opinions regarding this topic? Do you regard Debian as an "open enough" organization, or do you think there's room for improvement? 2. Historically Debian has had project leaders varying between two extrema: those who were very vocal and could be seen constantly participating in a productive way in several internal and external fora and those who tended to take part in discussions to make succint statements regarding their opinion of the subject at hand. Both styles highlited good and bad characteristics to have in a leader for a project like Debian. Between these two cases, what kind of leadership do you foresee yours to be? Thanks, -- Marcelo | "If you put butter and salt on it, it tastes like salty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | butter." | -- Popcorn comes to the Discworld |(Terry Pratchett, Moving Pictures) msg01428/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions to Candidates
>> Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When CosmicRay CosmicRay? -- M.
Re: Questions to Candidates
>> Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When CosmicRay CosmicRay? -- M. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending automated mails
> to other developers (regarding the DDTS or any other subject).
>
> If he does not comply within 24 hours of ratification of this proposal,
> he will be expelled from the Debian Project.
And I propose that developers who send useless childish smart ass
one-liners to Debian mailing lists get expelled, too... no, wait,
scratch that, there wouldn't be anyone left...
Get real Branden. Michael's system has bugs. Just ask him to stop
sending the messages, write an opt-in system (since it looks like
people would consider an opt-out one out of the question) that uses
email addresses instead of package names ("send the DDTS mail iff the
maintainer is on the list of people who want to get notified about this
stuff"), send a message to d-d-a and start sending the mails again.
How hard can that be? It's four lines of perl... (golf anyone?)
--
Marcelo | From the back, Vetinari looked like a carnivorous
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | flamingo.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)
Re: [PROPOSED] Michael Bramer must stop spamming or be expelled
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose that Michael Bramer be ordered to stop sending automated mails
> to other developers (regarding the DDTS or any other subject).
>
> If he does not comply within 24 hours of ratification of this proposal,
> he will be expelled from the Debian Project.
And I propose that developers who send useless childish smart ass
one-liners to Debian mailing lists get expelled, too... no, wait,
scratch that, there wouldn't be anyone left...
Get real Branden. Michael's system has bugs. Just ask him to stop
sending the messages, write an opt-in system (since it looks like
people would consider an opt-out one out of the question) that uses
email addresses instead of package names ("send the DDTS mail iff the
maintainer is on the list of people who want to get notified about this
stuff"), send a message to d-d-a and start sending the mails again.
How hard can that be? It's four lines of perl... (golf anyone?)
--
Marcelo | From the back, Vetinari looked like a carnivorous
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | flamingo.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Our counting procedure
>> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote > > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of > > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices. > > So what exactly is "open for interpretation"? Whether 1 means what you (and I) say or not. Note it says "do not leave [...] black(sic) but rank", that is, it says "vote like this: 23451 instead of like this: 1", which is IMO wrong. -- Marcelo
Re: Our counting procedure
>> Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote > > "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of > > The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices. > > So what exactly is "open for interpretation"? Whether 1 means what you (and I) say or not. Note it says "do not leave [...] black(sic) but rank", that is, it says "vote like this: 23451 instead of like this: 1", which is IMO wrong. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Our counting procedure
>> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > IOW, if I only mark "--1--", then my vote is as good as nothing, since I > > made no preference of one over the other. So not specifying a rank in > > the order pretty much alleviates that choice in the tally for that > > particular vote. > > Debatable. Unmarked votes can also be counted as "equally last", so > that "--1--" count is the same as "22122". Exactly. Given options ABCD and none of the above (E), and given what the constitution says, voting --1-- ammounts IMO to "I like C over ABDE but I don't have a preference regarding the relation among the other options". Along the same vein, "--1-2" means "I like C and 'nothing else'". With our counting procedure this is *not* the same as "34152" because that means "[...] and prefer A over B", which I don't. Please note this could make a difference in the end result *iff* you manage to get A.6.5 to kick in, which I'm not convinced you can (at least not in real votes) without interpreting what the constitution *says*. > The constitution is unclear on this (as well as many other things) It's not only unclear, it doesn't mention it at all. As a matter of fact, the only place that mentions this is: In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you reach your last choice. You may leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices. IMO the last two sentences are open for interpretation. Note it *defines* 'unacceptable choices' and then explains how to 'discard' them. Anyway, we don't want to pull an USA here... Congrats Ben. I wish the Project a good year under your leadership! -- Marcelo
Re: Our counting procedure
>> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > IOW, if I only mark "--1--", then my vote is as good as nothing, since I > > made no preference of one over the other. So not specifying a rank in > > the order pretty much alleviates that choice in the tally for that > > particular vote. > > Debatable. Unmarked votes can also be counted as "equally last", so > that "--1--" count is the same as "22122". Exactly. Given options ABCD and none of the above (E), and given what the constitution says, voting --1-- ammounts IMO to "I like C over ABDE but I don't have a preference regarding the relation among the other options". Along the same vein, "--1-2" means "I like C and 'nothing else'". With our counting procedure this is *not* the same as "34152" because that means "[...] and prefer A over B", which I don't. Please note this could make a difference in the end result *iff* you manage to get A.6.5 to kick in, which I'm not convinced you can (at least not in real votes) without interpreting what the constitution *says*. > The constitution is unclear on this (as well as many other things) It's not only unclear, it doesn't mention it at all. As a matter of fact, the only place that mentions this is: In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you reach your last choice. You may leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Start with 1, don't skip any numbers, don't repeat. To vote "no, no matter what" do not leave an option black but rank "None Of The Above" higher than the unacceptable choices. IMO the last two sentences are open for interpretation. Note it *defines* 'unacceptable choices' and then explains how to 'discard' them. Anyway, we don't want to pull an USA here... Congrats Ben. I wish the Project a good year under your leadership! -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our counting procedure
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's how people voted: Can any of you guys that recounted the results (you know you did) confirm that the numbers are right? I can get those numbers only if I make an assumption which a) I think is wrong b) throws some people's votes out of the window. Don't worry, the result is *exactly* the same, it's just that the numbers are a bit different. This has nothing to do with the result, but with a question another developer asked me (hi Jochen), regarding how we count votes and why we have some sections on the constitution that seem to serve no purpose (if you read what the constitution says and don't try to second guess the intention of the writer). TIA, -- Marcelo
Our counting procedure
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's how people voted: Can any of you guys that recounted the results (you know you did) confirm that the numbers are right? I can get those numbers only if I make an assumption which a) I think is wrong b) throws some people's votes out of the window. Don't worry, the result is *exactly* the same, it's just that the numbers are a bit different. This has nothing to do with the result, but with a question another developer asked me (hi Jochen), regarding how we count votes and why we have some sections on the constitution that seem to serve no purpose (if you read what the constitution says and don't try to second guess the intention of the writer). TIA, -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
>> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wouldn't want an elected DPL to blindly do X, because that is what > he/she promised before the election, when new evidence comes to light > that indicates that X is bad (eg. perhaps some new solution Y is > suggested that removes the need for X). This subthread is getting more than mildly annoying. Back to what Branden said: > * Fish or cut bait with respect to non-free, and pass any > constitutional amendments necessary to permit us to make that choice; Craig is right, this is a bit more definite than what Branden had expressed up to that point. I had to look the idiom on a dictionary, and was left wondering about what exactly Branden means. "Fish or cut bait" means, according to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs, "do your job or let somebody else do it". Particularly, it doesn't mean "come to a final resolution". I'm not looking for hidden agendas here, but I had to keep in mind two pieces of information: 1) Branden is knwon to brag about his masterful English knowledge; 2) Branden has expressed at some point his desire to get *rid* of non-free (but not on a public mailing list, AFAICR) That said, the beauty about this quote is that it's annoyingly multivalented. I would also have liked to know what Branden meant by it, and I think that Craig's question was, before so many people made sure it won't get any kind of useful answer, valid. Sadly, that's no longer the case, because it has been tainted with meanings it didn't had. And it would had been nice if it would had been answered by Braden, not by people won't aren't even running for DPL. This whole thing isn't so much about the answer to a silly question, but about building an image of a person running for DPL. I can't avoid noticing that Branden has changed his ways, specifically, he has been refraining from flaming people. I can't decide if that's a good thing or not. On one hand, it's nice to see less gratuitous (and bordering on silly) flaming. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorist in you can't avoid asking himself if this isn't just an "image" thing. -- Marcelo
Re: Some questions for the DPL candidates
>> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wouldn't want an elected DPL to blindly do X, because that is what > he/she promised before the election, when new evidence comes to light > that indicates that X is bad (eg. perhaps some new solution Y is > suggested that removes the need for X). This subthread is getting more than mildly annoying. Back to what Branden said: > * Fish or cut bait with respect to non-free, and pass any > constitutional amendments necessary to permit us to make that choice; Craig is right, this is a bit more definite than what Branden had expressed up to that point. I had to look the idiom on a dictionary, and was left wondering about what exactly Branden means. "Fish or cut bait" means, according to the Random House Dictionary of Proverbs, "do your job or let somebody else do it". Particularly, it doesn't mean "come to a final resolution". I'm not looking for hidden agendas here, but I had to keep in mind two pieces of information: 1) Branden is knwon to brag about his masterful English knowledge; 2) Branden has expressed at some point his desire to get *rid* of non-free (but not on a public mailing list, AFAICR) That said, the beauty about this quote is that it's annoyingly multivalented. I would also have liked to know what Branden meant by it, and I think that Craig's question was, before so many people made sure it won't get any kind of useful answer, valid. Sadly, that's no longer the case, because it has been tainted with meanings it didn't had. And it would had been nice if it would had been answered by Braden, not by people won't aren't even running for DPL. This whole thing isn't so much about the answer to a silly question, but about building an image of a person running for DPL. I can't avoid noticing that Branden has changed his ways, specifically, he has been refraining from flaming people. I can't decide if that's a good thing or not. On one hand, it's nice to see less gratuitous (and bordering on silly) flaming. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorist in you can't avoid asking himself if this isn't just an "image" thing. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd like to see a list containing that information. If elected DPL, I > would attempt to ensure that we have one. "If elected DPL". That's... enlightening. -- Marcelo
Re: my platform for Debian Project Leader
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd like to see a list containing that information. If elected DPL, I > would attempt to ensure that we have one. "If elected DPL". That's... enlightening. -- Marcelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Leader Election 2000
>> Anthony Towns writes: > Aiee. I have no idea who to vote for. [LMGOL!] > So if any of the candidates feel like answering just one more > question, here you go: > > - Why would you be a better DPL than Wichert? > > Flame! Be confrontational! Make a statement! Last year's elections were a bit more agitated and confrontational, weren't they? This year, even the debate was reasonable, modulo Espy who was conviniently abducted at the time... Marcelo
Re: Platform for DPL...
Hi Ben, >> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What I'de like to see in Debian is more of a hierarchy for strong > decision making, and give every developer a chance to be > involved. Do not confuse this with more "politics" or placing > developers above their peers. This has to do with making each of > out core projects (archive, mailing lists, boot disks, i18n > projects, resource management, press contacts, porters, ...) more > available to peers. I couldn't help noticing... there's no mention of "New Maintainer" there. Could you please elaborate a bit on that respect? Thanks, Marcelo
