Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 09:40:43PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 05:19:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: If anything opening the voting period sooner (so it overlaps with campaigning) might be helpful; with the ability to vote repeatedly people can always change their minds if they like. I'm not sure it's worth the effort though. You can already change your vote by just voting again. Yes, that's my point - since we can do that there's no need to wait until after campaigning to cast votes, we can always change votes if something changes our minds. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: All DPL candidates: DPL Term lengths and limits?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:24:13PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:06:00AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: The 2-week voting period made sense when the Constitution was written, as intermittent internet access was much more likely back then. But today, it's probably less justified. Do you want to disenfranchise DDs who are on vacation? Or even just busy for that matter, personally it's easy for me to sign things since I use a GnuPG smart card but if I didn't do that or equivalent it'd be a bit of a hassle for me to get access to my key to sign a vote. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:25:37AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: In addition, a list of do nots will make people assume that the project is in a worse state than it actually is. To paraphrase one participant of the CoC BoF during debconf, when the draft CoC was still somewhat negative: I get the feeling, if I read this code of conduct, that Debian is a very problematic community with lots of problems. I don't want our code of conduct to produce that feeling. There's been a very strong and quite successful push recently to convince organisations to adopt codes of conduct so at this point the usual suggestion for people worrying about it being a sign of problems is to point people at the list of other organisations doing the same thing. The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:43:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:31:54AM +, Solveig wrote: 2. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see [the page on Debian's organizational structure](http://www.debian.org/intro/organization) ... Also, why (in private)? People who are not confortable to report in public will do it in private, but shouldn't *have to* be discreet about other's misbehaviour. The in private part is only about talking to administrators; it is my experience that saying I think you're out of line here, with an explicit Cc to listmasters is often a fairly inflammatory way of doing things. If I remember correctly there were also concerns about administrators being directly included on public reports causing the reports to for example get large mailing list flamewars sent directly to the listmaster contact address which would be disruptive to the process of acting on complaints. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:35:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:09:25PM +, Mark Brown wrote: The usual reasoning for explicitly enumerating things is the thing Solveig mentioned about people being (or professing to be) too inept to realise what appropriate behaviour is. Personally I do tend to share some of the concerns about rules lawyering and evasion with that but it's a reasonable view and I suspect you don't win either way. I could see how a separate document, with an explicit list of do nots, could usefully be linked from the further reading section. I think we should not make such a list authoritative. I definitely agree that the list should at the very least be written to have an and anything else we find unacceptable in it which is pretty much the same thing I think. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:13:14PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:40:17AM +, Neil McGovern wrote: So, we have a Foundation Document, or a Position Statement that's agreed by GR, and then can be changed by the DPL to a delegate. I don't think this is entirely constitutional... The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I do think it's also important to agree that the code of conduct should be enforcable in some way so there are consequences for breaking it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: More votes in Debian? Any idea for improvement?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:34:05AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Anthony Towns a...@master.debian.org writes: Personally, I would put this down to Debian simply not having any contentious decisions to make. I haven't been following Debian as closely as I once did, though, so perhaps I just haven't seen them. I wonder if anyone can name three big controversies over the past few years that have gotten resolved within Debian? Multiarch. (Okay, we're not done yet, but we're a lot of the way along.) The DEP5 copyright format. Build hardening flags. How to implement build-arch (again, not done yet, but we do have a decision that I expect to be implemented shortly). My guess is that at least multiarch and build hardening would have become GRs about five years ago. None of these except possibly build-arch (which I don't think many people actually care about) seem at all controversial. The issues with all these things seem to be more to do with actually getting the work done rather than any great debates. -- 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/20120328154919.gc23...@sirena.org.uk
Re: Q for the Candidates: How many users?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 04:52:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:49:47PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Then we can look at the official mirrors logs (for distinct IPs regularly downloading package indexes in a given time window), and at the same index downloads for security.d.o (which is enabled by default and most likely not accessed via mirrors). I actually thought I'd done that at some point just for kicks, but I don't seem to be able to find what the results might have been. (Note You did do this - it was during a meeting at DebConf7 and you were reporting everything verbally as you went along so I rather suspect that the results never got written down. -- 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/20100326123702.gg27...@sirena.org.uk
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:28:21AM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +, Mark Brown wrote: This is also an issue in some other industries for things like the PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FWIW. Taken with a grain of salt, but I can't recall any part of the PCI DSS which Debian doesn't comply with at least as well as Redhat does. The issue is not if we comply, it's if we've got certification saying that we comply - the people who care about this stuff need to have the certification. Which is to say, on the server or desktop side PCI does not require certification or independent evalutaion of the OS or applications, just that given practices be followed. (Some of them are a bit, odd, or downright insane, but.) Now, the issues with stuff embedded into credit card terminals or ATMs gets a lot nastier. Most of that goes into the hardware side, but I have not had to go through a PCI audit on those, so I'm not sure what all is involved. My understanding is that it's an issue on the server side as well if you're pushing the interesting data through there. I also understand that some of it is things like verifying that relevant security updates have been applied which is a best practice sort of thing but is something that people can do in a canned way with some OS knowledge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 01:58:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at the moment. Would you support using donations to fund one or both of those? This is also an issue in some other industries for things like the PCI DSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_DSS), FWIW. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Theodore Tso ty...@mit.edu wrote: FSF), Dynebolic, Musix GNU+Linux, BLAG, and Trisquel. So not only is there one such distribution that takes free software of cardinal importance, there are six in the world already. Does Debian really need to be the seventh such distribution? Except that none of these distros existed when Debian set the 100% free goal. Should it drop this goal now there are others such distros ? I don't think so. Should it make it less important than in the past ? I don't think either. Debian has always had a more relaxed view on these matters than the free software purists would like - things like providing contrib and non-free aren't entirely acceptable to them and are one of the reasons why people go to these other distributions with their stronger political focus. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:17:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: Doing so would be a violation of basic NMU policy. The claim was, hey, nobody is stopping anyone from fixing it, if it's not fixed, it's lame for people to complain, they should have fixed it. There's a difference between randomly charging around without making any effort to work with or coordinate with anyone else and working constructively as part of a large organisation. You appear to only be considering one of these options. You can either blame people for not uploading their own fix or prohibit them from doing so, but you can't do both at the same time. It appears that the rest of the world is meeting you at least half way here by, for example, producing patches which implement a solution that is more acceptable to upstream. Perhaps there are other, similarly low effort, things which you could to to contribute to getting those patches integrated? -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:40PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that would be different but I have not seen them doing this. Great, so since there won't be any active attempts to stop, I can just go ahead with the work, right? Providing you work in a constructive fashion I really don't see why this should be a problem. This would involve efforts to work with the kernel maintainers and release team, of course, rather than working with no coordination at all. As it turns out Ben has already been actively working on this within Debian so I'd suggest that the most constructive way forward would be to fill in the bits that are missing there, most of which looked like testing. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time thing, to give time to actually *fix* the problem. Note that there is currently active upstream work to allow us to address these issues - some of the patches are present in 2.6.27, others are still in flight. This is a vast step forward on where we were with etch if we do decide to go down the route of releasing with exceptions again. We need the relevant maintainers to be told your unwillingness to fix this means we will not be able to release. I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take, especially not in a volunteer project. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: We need the relevant maintainers to be told your unwillingness to fix this means we will not be able to release. I don't think that's a particularly constructive approach to take, especially not in a volunteer project. I think that it is singularly non-constructive to see the maintainers of packages regard compliance with our foundational documents as wishlist items, and the release team regard such things as anything other than show-stoppers. No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they could also step up to the plate and help fix this issue. If they were actively stopping people working on these issues then that would be different but I have not seen them doing this. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:40:18AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: GTD is quite popular and has been discussed on planet Debian several times together with the Inbox Zero principle... that's why I said well-known. But you're right that I should have given more references. Note that the whole Inbox Zero approach tends to recommend batch mode processing of your inbox as well as ensuring that you deal with everything when you are processing stuff. See for example: http://www.43folders.com/2006/03/15/email-dash -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 07:29:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 09:00:43PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: And at the time he was kind of right, [...], so he was rejecting the delays on the ???over-administrative-thing??? NM has become since he created the concept (at the time it was a Uh, where'd that myth come from? ... Since that time it's gotten quite a bit more procedural still (with question lists, and rules about contributions before applying, and not passing through without already being an active maintainer, and aiui on average a much more thorough review of applicants). I think that these changes are a much bigger deal than you're making them out to be here: the current new maintainer process feels very different to how it felt when the DAM/FD/AM based system was first introduced. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 07:15:59PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to Could you explain how the time involvement required to be DD for a person who only wants to maintain one package is higer when they are a DD contrary to not being a DD? Please ignore going through NM since this is only the entry process and doesn't matter at a later stage. In addition to the practical issues that Raphael raises a number of people have expressed a desire to maintian packages (and otherwise be involved in the technical side of Debian) without having any involvement in the political side of Debian. It's true that people can always just ignore these things but some people feel a sense of obligation to take part in them and are more comfortable with a status that explicitly excludes doing that. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:06:30PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Since we do not ask new DD's to e.g. underwrite the mailinglist culture, I also do not see it as necessary to discontinue being a DD when you do not like that culture. As a matter of fact, I'd be offended if someone would conclude that I underwrite e.g. flamewars because I'm a DD. This depends. Like a number of other people I believe that it is important to exercise your right to vote whenever possible. I also feel that doing that effectively within Debian requires that reading at least -vote in order to follow the issues. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 05:52:49PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Friday 22 June 2007 16:50, Steve Langasek wrote: Not for the benefit of that developer, but for our benefit. I have no fear at all of Matthew Garrett doing an incompetent job of preparing packages; why should we make it hard for *Debian* to take advantage of his contributions? Just to get things clear here: is Matthew Garrett actually interested in such a feature? As I understand his parting message, he left the project because Yes, he has expressed such an interest - he is still the maintainer of a number of packages in Debian. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question to the candidates: inclusion of the kFreeBSD-* ports
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve packages? Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures. This sounds like a problem independant of this particular port - do people give reasons for this? If the patch is invasive or likely to have additional problems I can understand a response like that (indeed, one of my packages has such a patch) but I can't imagine too many packages would run into that sort of issue. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions to the candidates
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:16:34PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 04:55:58PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Unfortunately we have big cultural differences when it comes to use of the money. Some people [...] feel they are some sort of second class developers because they will never have that opportunity to earn money while doing Debian stuff. Hey, that's not really a cultural difference here. If you really already know for sure some people won't never ever get paid, how could they feel otherwise? While I really don't wish to discourage anyone who is considering doing so I would be rather surprised if someone wanted to sponsor my work on clc-intercal. I suppose this means that, at least as far as my work on that package goes, I'm some sort of second class developer but I can't say that does anything other than reflect the reality of the situation. want. Or do not pay people, but events or devcamps for teams that have very important task to achieve and that can benefit from such camps. Sponsoring meetings is, of course, going to be unfair to people who for reasons of time, remoteness or whatever can't manage to get to the meetings - there's always going to be some unfairness. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot suggests: It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL decision then a snap vote is held to decide if the decision should stand until the vote proper is run (section 4.2.4). Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Especially in this case, where it looks like the differences will be resolved before we ever get to a vote. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Firmware Social Contract: GR proposal
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that, according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently, while you said somewhere that it hadn't... The current situation appears to be that we end up repeatedly arguing about which bits of the social contract we can fail to meet in order to get a release done. While I think it's fair to say that many people have seen quite enough discussion about these issues this doesn't mean that that sort of discussion is likely to stop happening. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:07:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:00:44PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: To those who consider ROM-less hardware cheap and nasty I suggest the opposite is true. I design hardware (FPGAs) professionally for expensive communications equipment. We avoid ROMs as much as possible, because they are difficult to upgrade reliably and they are a waste of money. Do you consider FPGA config files as programs, or would you say that the normal DFSG requirement for source applies to those also in order to be considered fit for debian/main ? I am interested in your profesional opinion on this, since you clearly seem to either be, or in close contact to someone who is, an upstream author of such firmwares. Speaking as someone with experience of the software rather than hardware side of this I'd call FPGA images hardware. From the point of view of working with it it looks very much like hardware. That's just my opinion, though. I'd also observe that newer FPGA chips often feature encryption support: the hardware has a secret key blown into it during manufacturing which must be used when building FPGA images to be loaded onto the hardware. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:23:29 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: aren't software. So if firmware was already supposed to be covered under the DFSG, how is this reconciled with the fact that no one ever worried about firmware in Debian until the past couple of years? These are not just reasonable definitions -- they are the overwhelming majority of definitions found for the terms. I searched the digital libraries of the ACM and of the IEEE, and I have yet to come across any mention of firmware that does not concede that it is software programs -- perhaps software programs that are read off Within a Debian context people normally seem to use the term firmware to mean any binary blob that gets programmed into hardware. This could include things like register settings or FPGA images as well as programs to execute on embedded processors. I'm not sure if there are any instances of these other types in the upstream kernel, though. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: followup to my time-management question
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:57:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wouldn't wait longer than a week after your initial post to pose such surrogate answers. So I'll happily post it earlier, and with a clear indication of my intentions, but I'm not going to post my estimations in lieu of the candidates' until the end. Perhaps you could also post a reminder message at some appropriate point before campaigning ends if it looks like you're going to have to post your own estimations? That would help avoid things gettnig overlooked. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for many this has been more than a simple textual clarification. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: I don't believe that the GR had a misleading title. It were editorial changes after all. We've been argued a lot of times before that the SC/DFSG does not only handle pure software but all kinds of data. We The controversy surrounding the result really does suggest that for many this has been more than a simple textual clarification. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said anything appreciably more meaningful than I want to keep non-free or I want to drop non-free. I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:10:59PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: and I've been following them carefully, and none of them have said anything appreciably more meaningful than I want to keep non-free or I want to drop non-free. I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:19:23PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:00:09PM +, Mark Brown wrote: I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. We can't meaningfully pass a GR that determines what some non-Debian project does - so I can't think how that would be any different. Even just announcing some kind of timetable as others have suggested would go a way towards addressing those concerns. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2 (it peers inside the library internals). -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 09:26:56PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think there's ORP, GCJ, Kaffee and maybe one other Java in main. I ORP is in main but neither runs nor compiles on anything except glibc2.2 (it peers inside the library internals). -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider knowledge, the votes are secrets, and the results published only after the election is closed. This doesn't change the fact that there is a chance that by voting you'll have an effect other than that which you'd intended. It's a fairly small chance but it's there. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Platform for DPL election
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:57:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Here's a lynx -dump transcription for those who don't want to launch their web browser :-) While I've already read all the platforms already but I do think that posting them all here is an excellent idea - my thought when I looked them up was I haven't seen any platforms, I wonder if they are availiable yet -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever msg01380/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Platform for DPL election
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:57:46PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Here's a lynx -dump transcription for those who don't want to launch their web browser. :-) While I've already read all the platforms already but I do think that posting them all here is an excellent idea - my thought when I looked them up was I haven't seen any platforms, I wonder if they are availiable yet. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. pgppEBptKxWfF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:08:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:34:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Well, no. People (well, at least one of them) think the only constitutionally sound way of offering an alternative to be voted on I guess voting NO is not a sufficiently vigorous way of registering one's disagreement... That doesn't really provide a good way of providing alternative ways of solving a problem. Imagine if the logo vote had been done by voting in turn on each logo in turn rather than by having a single vote. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Status of Proposals [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:37:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall us agreeing to a ballot that, I suppose, could take a form like this: [ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment [ ] NO to Foundational Documents amendment [ ] YES to modify and withdraw amendment [ ] NO to modify and withdraw amendment I think that was the orignal suggestion on the mailing lists, but there were objections to it. As you can see, both proposals amend only the first sentence of section 5, and they amend it in exactly the same way (whitespace aside). That's true, but... This is why I suggested that we have, on the same ballot, the following two choices: * amend Constitution to change language of section 5 * amend Constitution to add sections 5.1 and 5.2 These are, of course, nonexclusive options; a person may vote for either, both, or neither. However, a person's decision on one option may be dependant on the outcome of the other. People who wish to make it hard to modify the foundation documents would ideally want to have both options pass but would not wish to see the modify and withdraw amendment go through without some additional protection being provided for the foundation documents. As well as eliminating an inconsistent (or at least somewhat peculiar) outcome Manoj's proposal also seems to answer this problem. I'm not sure how well it allows people to say I want to modify the foundation documents but I'm not concerned about how easy that is, although I think preference ranking ought to DTRT. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
I posted something to this thread (on a mailing list to which I'm subscribed) a number of weeks ago. Could you please stop CCing me on every message? It's annoying enough when you've just posted. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what they should say, and that's what the voters should be reading. It might be worth looking at the way in which CFVs are produced for the various Usenet heirachies - there's a lot of experience there of doing just this sort of thing. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: The notion of "Foundational Documents" is completely new stuff without any hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea is that these documents are at least as important to what Debian is as the constitution and so changing them should be at least as hard as changing the constitution. The constitution is basically just a set of rules for making decisions - things like the DFSG and the Social Contract define much more clearly what we're trying to achieve than the constitution does. If you're going to point someone at a document explaining what Debian is all about I don't think the constitution is likely to be the first thing you're likely to think of. If we do decide that we consider these documents to be fundamental to defining what Debian is it seems reasonable that we should be just as cautious when modifying them as we are when modifying the constitution. If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion of your resolution will pass, then you have no reason to object to ballots for it and my resolution to be issued simultaneously. If the Project Secretary It would be sensible to put them on the same ballot. I guess allowing people to rank your proposal, that of Manoj and no change would give enough options for everyone. I don't know how much provision there is for doing things like that in the constitution, though. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ PGP signature
Re: [Notice] Social Contract Change Vote
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: I don't think the Secretary should summarize proposals this way -- it's almost impossible to do without bias. Presumably the proponents of the proposals spent a lot of time crafting them to say exactly what they should say, and that's what the voters should be reading. It might be worth looking at the way in which CFVs are produced for the various Usenet heirachies - there's a lot of experience there of doing just this sort of thing. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpeKfgr9302t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:10:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: The notion of Foundational Documents is completely new stuff without any hint of precedent within the Constitution. Regardless of its merits (or I'd say that the constitution itself is some kind of precedent. The idea is that these documents are at least as important to what Debian is as the constitution and so changing them should be at least as hard as changing the constitution. The constitution is basically just a set of rules for making decisions - things like the DFSG and the Social Contract define much more clearly what we're trying to achieve than the constitution does. If you're going to point someone at a document explaining what Debian is all about I don't think the constitution is likely to be the first thing you're likely to think of. If we do decide that we consider these documents to be fundamental to defining what Debian is it seems reasonable that we should be just as cautious when modifying them as we are when modifying the constitution. If you're so certain that the Foundational Documents portion of your resolution will pass, then you have no reason to object to ballots for it and my resolution to be issued simultaneously. If the Project Secretary It would be sensible to put them on the same ballot. I guess allowing people to rank your proposal, that of Manoj and no change would give enough options for everyone. I don't know how much provision there is for doing things like that in the constitution, though. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpB3j4nACU4S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:00:29AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I second the enclosed proposal. == 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: 1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader. 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. 4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they agree with a 2:1 majority. -5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements. - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian - software must meet. - They may also include position statements about issues of the day. +5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian + software must meet. + They may also include position statements about issues of the day. + 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as + Foundation Documents. These documents are those + that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project, + they tend to define what the project is, and lay the + foundations of its structure. The developers may + modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1 + majority. -- + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists + of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the + documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the + Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents + that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed + by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. 6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See s.9.1.) == Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core, or Foundation, documents of the project the same protection against hasty changes that the constitution itself enjoys. == -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpVB0SZFCuG9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:51:40PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote: software. With the advent of broadband, the growth of commercial Linux software and other factors, article 5 looks more and more like an appendage. Not all the world is the US. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote: Being the champions of free software doesn't always mean we have to be extremists about it. :) One of the things I always used to find good about Debian was that even though a lot of people seem to view it as being about making political statement there is usually a technical reason for what we do. The politics is as much a byproduct of of producing one of the most technically excellent Linux distributions out there as an end in itself. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgp7iUcAmoKUI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: [please CC: any replies to me] Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at you, Joy.) directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition tools verbosely advise the user about the non-freeness of the software he tries to get/install. And, perhaps more to the point, let them read the license of a non-free package before rather than after they install it. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpTEyKbKveJn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Seconded. The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the developers to resolve that: --- 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing non-free software for it users. 2) the Debian project also acknowledges that some developers may be unwilling or unable to explicitly work on non-free software, and holds that this is not and should not be detrimental to their work on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, or their contribution to the Debian project. 3) the Debian project considers equating the importance of the contrib and non-free areas described in the Social Contract with the official Debian GNU/Linux distribution inappropriate. 4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to specifically collect the various other add-on components such as experimental, orphaned, non-free and contrib and to clearly separate these from the main collection. --- -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpuizvXoI6Fn.pgp Description: PGP signature
