Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Hi, Thanks for pushing this forward. Seconded. Cheers, Nicolas On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 12:10:21PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > Dear Debian Fellows, > > Following the email sent by Ilu to debian-project (Message-ID: > <4b93ed08-f148-4c7f-b172-f967f7de7...@gmx.net>), and as we have > discussed during the MiniDebConf UY 2023 with other Debian Members, I > would like to call for a vote about issuing a Debian public statement > regarding > the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the Product Liability Directive > (PLD). The CRA is in the final stage in the legislative process in the > EU Parliament, and we think it will impact negatively the Debian > Project, users, developers, companies that rely on Debian, and the FLOSS > community as a whole. Even if the CRA will be probably adopted before > the time the vote ends (if it takes place), we think it is important to > take a public stand about it. > > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act and the > Product Liability Directive > > The European Union is currently preparing a regulation "on horizontal > cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements" known as > the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). It's currently in the final "trilogue" > phase of the legislative process. The act includes a set of essential > cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for manufacturers. > It will require products to be accompanied by information and > instructions to the user. Manufacturers will need to perform risk > assessments and produce technical documentation and for critical > components, have third-party audits conducted. Discoverded security > issues will have to be reported to European authorities within 24 hours > (1). The CRA will be followed up by the Product Liability Directive > (PLD) which will introduce compulsory liability for software. More > information about the proposed legislation and its consequences in (2). > > While a lot of these regulations seem reasonable, the Debian project > believes that there are grave problems for Free Software projects > attached to them. Therefore, the Debian project issues the following > statement: > > 1. Free Software has always been a gift, freely given to society, to > take and to use as seen fit, for whatever purpose. Free Software has > proven to be an asset in our digital age and the proposed EU Cyber > Resilience Act is going to be detrimental to it. > a. It is Debian's goal to "make the best system we can, so that > free works will be widely distributed and used." Imposing requirements > such as those proposed in the act makes it legally perilous for others > to redistribute our works and endangers our commitment to "provide an > integrated system of high-quality materials _with no legal restrictions_ > that would prevent such uses of the system". (3) > > b. Knowing whether software is commercial or not isn't feasible, > neither in Debian nor in most free software projects - we don't track > people's employment status or history, nor do we check who finances > upstream projects. > > c. If upstream projects stop developing for fear of being in the > scope of CRA and its financial consequences, system security will > actually get worse instead of better. > > d. Having to get legal advice before giving a present to society > will discourage many developers, especially those without a company or > other organisation supporting them. > > 2. Debian is well known for its security track record through practices > of responsible disclosure and coordination with upstream developers and > other Free Software projects. We aim to live up to the commitment made > in the Social Contract: "We will not hide problems." (3) > a. The Free Software community has developed a fine-tuned, well > working system of responsible disclosure in case of security issues > which will be overturned by the mandatory reporting to European > authorities within 24 hours (Art. 11 CRA). > > b. Debian spends a lot of volunteering time on security issues, > provides quick security updates and works closely together with upstream > projects, in coordination with other vendors. To protect its users, > Debian regularly participates in limited embargos to coordinate fixes to > security issues so that all other major Linux distributions can also > have a complete fix when the vulnerability is disclosed. > > c. Security issue tracking and remediation is intentionally > decentralized and distributed. The reporting of security issues to > ENISA and the intended propagation to other authorities and national > administrations would collect all software vulnerabilities in one place, > greatly increasin
Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board»
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 17:53, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Better done with the morning coffee than late at night :-) > > I suggest the following options and ordering to appear on the ballot: > > [A] Call for the FSF board removal, as in rms-open-letter.github.io > (proposed by Steve Langasek, currently base proposal) > > [B] Call for Stallman's resignation from FSF all bodies > (proposed by Sruthi Chandran, currently proposal B) > > [C] Discurage collaboration with the FSF while Stallman is in a leading > position > (proposed by Santiago Ruano Rincón, currently proposal C) > > [D] Call on the FSF to further its governance processes > (proposed by Jonathan Wiltshire, currently proposal D) > > [E] Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal E) > > [F] Support Stallman's reinstatement, as in rms-support-letter.github.io > (proposed by Timo Weingärtner, currently proposal A) > > My reasoning for this suggested ordering is to present the options > ordered, from most strongly against to most strongly in support of > Stallman. They could also be presented in the inverse order, if it > seems that proposed options [E] and [F] are too underrepresented and > left to the endto the end. I would suggest moving proposal E to the top or to the bottom of the ballot, as one can argue that this "status quo" option doesn't really fit within the "condemn → support" axis you've proposed. I think I agree with how the other options are ordered. Thanks, -- Nicolas Dandrimont
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
Le Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: > > This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with > our constitution, section 4.1.5. > > The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation > are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. > > We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the > governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and > serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a > number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the > board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to > reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on > those complainants. > > The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where > those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for > their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes > is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that > Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from > issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard > remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. > > We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in > March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work > tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through > properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their > voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its > power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including > a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. > > We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which > reinstated him, to consider their positions. > > The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all > walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength > of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that > all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and > secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. > > END CHOICE TEXT Seconded. Thank you, -- Nicolas Dandrimont signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: ratify https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:54:16PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote : > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the body > who has the power to issue nontechnical statements. > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > is a statement which I believe Debian as a project, and not just individual > Debian developers, should consider signing on to. > > This is a proposal for Debian to sign on to the statement, by adopting the > text from that open letter via GR. > > Text of GR > > The Debian Project co-signs the statement regarding Richard Stallman's > readmission to the FSF seen at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md. > > The text of this statement is given below. > > [...] > > End Text of GR Seconded. (I'll also second an amended text with s/FSF/FSF board/ or equivalent correction) Thank you, Nicolas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question for DPL candidates: Teetotaler outreach
Hey, * Chris Lamb [2017-03-31 19:31:44 +0100]: > In Debian, it would seem difficult to rename cherished events such as the > "Cheese & Wine BoF", but we could always advertise and underline ahead of > time that non-alcoholic beverages are available and actually ensure a > sufficient and interesting variety actually are. After all, not drinking > alcohol hardly implies a diet consisting entirely of Coca-Cola. [Actually, renaming the C&W BoF has been in the back of my mind for a while, I'll see what I can come up with for DC17 :P] I think non-grapey, non-alcoholic and non-lactose-based options were plentiful for the DC16 party, but if they didn't suit you, or weren't advertised enough, let me know so we can improve. Cheers, -- Nicolas Dandrimont DebConf Cheese Wrangler BOFH excuse #412: Radial Telemetry Infiltration signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
* Bart Martens [2016-08-07 13:58:46 +]: > Hi Nicolas, Hi, > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 02:54:36PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the > > declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was > > used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually > > sensitive > > matters. > > Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that. > > > I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors > > to > > decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an > > explicit > > disclaimer has not been put in the message. > > Then the text of GR 2016/vote_002 should have reflected that. Encoding the process down to the nitty gritty details is what discouraged people to actually do the work in the first place. I'm glad that Don's amendment doesn't do that, and, who knows, it might even encourage people to get things done, finally. > I have now voted against GR 2016/vote_002 because it allows declassification > of > anything ever posted on debian-private against the authors' will. But do we really think that's what is going to happen? Can't we trust the listmasters to respect the privacy that they have upheld for the last 10+ years? Why is it so hard to trust the people who actually want to do the work to come up with a sensible process? > I hope that everyone fully realizes that before voting. And I hope that, at one point, we as a project will learn to trust one another and stop micro-managing people that actually want to get things done. Bye, -- Nicolas Dandrimont signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
* Micha Lenk [2016-08-07 12:59:05 +0200]: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi all, > > sorry for joining the discussion late. I just realized when reading > the call for votes that I should have joined the discussion earlier. Definitely. > Am 16.07.2016 um 23:06 schrieb Julien Cristau: > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 13:17:24 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > >> 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the > >> DPL to do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of > >> historical interest by any process which provides sufficient > >> opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to > >> declassification. > >> > > I'm not sure I like restricting the opportunity to object to > > Debian Developers. Anything of historical interest is likely to > > involve people who are no longer DDs at the time publication is > > considered, and they should probably have a say. > > What I am missing in this section is a clarification whether this > affects also past messages to -private or only those messages after > this GR has passed and the change is reflected in all the > documentation and is properly announced to all DDs. > > While I am fine with the latter, I oppose this GR affecting any > messages that have been sent in the past. That would establishing some > kind of "ex post facto" law (which by the way is prohibited in many > constitutions for good reasons). I really don't want to leave the > decision whether past messages will be affected or not up to the list > masters. For this reason I will vote "Further Discussion". In my opinion the only point in this General Resolution is allowing the declassification of the early years of -private, where the mailing list was used as a "project" mailing list rather than for discussing actually sensitive matters. I find that we've gotten better at moving threads of interest to public forums over time. I expect a sensible declassification process to allow the original authors to decide on whether their messages should be declassified or not, if an explicit disclaimer has not been put in the message. I also expect the declassification team to present and hash out the process in public before going forward with it, but without having the burden of doing a GR for every little tweak they do. The old GR mandated a process so contrived that the only thing it achieved was discouraging anyone from ever implementing it, while also barring people from ever extracting the really interesting content. I trust the listmasters or their chosen declassification team to come up with a workable process of their liking, and to apply good judgement in unraveling historically interesting threads while upholding the privacy of what needs to be kept private. Cheers, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #125: we just switched to Sprint. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Call for votes: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
* Nicolas Dandrimont [2016-07-19 12:13:38 +0200]: > * Don Armstrong [2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700]: > > > In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment > > to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the > > following amendment: > > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest > > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private > >list archives" is repealed. > > > > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to > >do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical > >interest by any process which at minimum provides sufficient time and > >opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to > >declassification. > > > > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing > >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > > > === END GR TEXT === > > Hi, > > I've had feedback from people who would rather keep -private@ private forever. > However, I now do believe that this amendment is just a clarification of the > intent of my original proposal. > > I therefore accept this amendment under paragraph A.1.2 of our constitution. > > Seconds who think otherwise should feel free to submit another amendment. Dear Secretary, It has been two weeks since I accepted this amendment. I would like to call for votes on this General Resolution. Thank you, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #430: Mouse has out-of-cheese-error signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
* Don Armstrong [2016-07-17 17:56:12 -0700]: > In response to the helpful comments, I've modified my proposed amendment > to Nicolas's resolution by adding "at minimum", and now propose the > following amendment: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to >do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical >interest by any process which at minimum provides sufficient time and >opportunity for Debian Developers to object by GR prior to >declassification. > > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === Hi, I've had feedback from people who would rather keep -private@ private forever. However, I now do believe that this amendment is just a clarification of the intent of my original proposal. I therefore accept this amendment under paragraph A.1.2 of our constitution. Seconds who think otherwise should feel free to submit another amendment. Thanks Don, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #278: The Dilithium Crystals need to be rotated. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to Proposed GR: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest
Hi Don, Thanks for your amendment. I'm very close to seconding it. However, I wonder why, in the second phrase, you're restricting the process of objecting to declassification to a GR. * Don Armstrong [2016-07-16 13:17:24 -0700]: > I hereby propose the following amendment to the currently proposed GR. > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Declassifying parts of -private of historical interest > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private >list archives" is repealed. > > 2. Debian listmasters and/or other individuals delegated by the DPL to >do so are authorized to declassify excerpts of -private of historical >interest by any process which provides sufficient opportunity for >Debian Developers to object by GR prior to declassification. ^ I don't think those words are necessary. > 3. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > === END GR TEXT === Thanks for clarifying, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #449: greenpeace free'd the mallocs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
Hi Kurt, * Kurt Roeckx [2016-07-16 20:52:03 +0200]: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:46:04PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > * Kurt Roeckx [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > > > > > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of > > > > debian-private > > > >list archives" is repealed. > > > > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian > > > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing > > > >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > > > > > > > === END GR TEXT === > > > > > > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR > > > and this GR passing? Could you be more explicit about it? > > > > The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private, > > actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, > > and > > won't be in the future. > > > > I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR > > "Acknowledge > > that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be > > enacted, > > and repeal it." or something more English. > > > > > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.) > > > > Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and > > regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now > > empowered > > to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive > > This is at least very confusing. The title says "will remain > private", but none of the text says anything about it being > private and you now seem to suggest that listmaster can just > decide that it's not private. I agree that the current title is misleading, as it doesn't convey the wording of the full proposal. I think that the title could be changed to someting along the lines of "Acknowledge that the current debian-private declassification process will not be implemented", but I think that's too long. Maybe "Revoke the current debian-private declassification process"? I don't know if such a title change falls under A.1.6 or not, as the actual meaning of the GR is the text, not its title, but the title might have misled people into seconding. *shudder* > We do have this text in the developer's reference: > 4.1.3.A Special lists > > is a special mailing list for > private discussions amongst Debian developers. It is meant to be > used for posts which for whatever reason should not be published > publicly. As such, it is a low volume list, and users are urged > not to use unless it is really > necessary. Moreover, do not forward email from that list to > anyone. Archives of this list are not available on the web for > obvious reasons, but you can see them using your shell account on > master.debian.org and looking in the ~debian/archive/ > debian-private/ directory. That's right. However, the Developers Reference is not a binding document, merely a documentation of existing practice. When and if declassification happens, whether by listmasters or by others, the devref will need updating. Thanks for your feedback, -- Nicolas Dandrimont Dijkstra probably hates me (Linus Torvalds, in kernel/sched.c) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
* Kurt Roeckx [2016-07-08 16:21:32 +0200]: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:37:08PM +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > > Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > > > 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private > >list archives" is repealed. > > 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing > >list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > > > === END GR TEXT === > > What does this mean for messages to private between the 2005 GR > and this GR passing? Could you be more explicit about it? The GR doesn't mean anything for messages that have been sent to -private, actually. It just removes a process that has not been enacted for 10 years, and won't be in the future. I would probably accept an amendment making the title of this GR "Acknowledge that the current process for debian-private declassification won't be enacted, and repeal it." or something more English. > (I'm also not sure what the situation before 2005 really was.) Me neither. In my interpretation of our current foundation documents and regulations, repealing the 2005 GR means that the listmasters are now empowered to do whatever they wish with the debian-private list archive, within the limits of US law of course (as I believe that's where they're hosted). At their discretion, listmasters will always be able to ask the project to endorse whichever process they wish to establish, if they ever find volunteers to do the declassification work for historical purposes, although I have complete trust in their judgement and therefore I don't feel it's necessary. In other words, if we remove the 2005 GR, debian-private is not a special list anymore, and we trust the listmasters judgement on its archive. And I'm fine with that. -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #5: static from plastic slide rules signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
* Margarita Manterola [2016-07-08 15:27:56 +0200]: > > The Debian Constitution is very well written, in a way that is almost > completely > ungendered. The only gendered word left is the Chairman of the Technical > Committee. There is no reason for this position to be gendered. Ungendered > alternatives for Chairman are Chair and Chairperson. While both work, Chair is > simpler and shorter. > > I'm therefore proposing the following General Resolution: > > === BEGIN GR TEXT === > > Title: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution > > All appearances of the word Chairman shall be replaced with the word Chair. > > === END GR TEXT === Seconded. Thanks for bringing this up, -- Nicolas Dandrimont "If you want to travel around the world and be invited to speak at a lot of different places, just write a Unix operating system." (By Linus Torvalds) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
* Russ Allbery [2016-07-07 09:57:38 -0700]: > Don Armstrong writes: > > > I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement > > the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the > > possibility of ever implementing it. > > I would prefer removing the possibility of ever implementing it without > another vote. We can always vote again if someone comes up with a > workable scheme. > > The possibility of declassification affects discussion, causes a lot of > people to add signatures saying to never declassify their messages, and > keeps coming up as people fret about it. This is all wasted energy and > worry given that there is no realistic prospect that the declassification > will happen. > > Your proposal is an improvement, but it still leaves a lot of uncertainty. > Since there are no plans to actually do anything about declassification, > and since there seems to be widespread agreement that the method for > declassification in the previous GR, while well-intentioned, is > unimplementable in practice, let's just remove the whole thing and require > another vote if anyone later comes up with a good idea. It simplifies > matters. That's my line of thinking as well. Thanks, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #344: Network failure - call NBC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
* Jakub Wilk [2016-07-07 16:15:44 +0200]: > * Nicolas Dandrimont , 2016-07-07, 15:37: > >=== BEGIN GR TEXT === > > > >Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. > > > >1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private > >list archives" is repealed. > >2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian > >Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing list > >only for discussions that should not be disclosed. > > > >=== END GR TEXT === > > The title says "Acknowledge", but there is no such acknowledgement in the > rest of the text. > > If you want -private remain private forever, say so explicitly. I don't think that we need to state whether debian-private needs to stay private or not in a GR. The acknowledgement is about failing to implement the existing GR, being honest about it, and to let us move on from it. I would welcome the mails from the early days of -private to become public, as some of them are of invaluable historical importance. That doesn't need to be decided by GR. Thanks, -- Nicolas Dandrimont signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
In 2005, the body of Debian Developers passed a General Resolution[1] requiring the creation of a declassification team for the debian-private mailing list. For the past ten years, the implementation of this GR has never materialized, despite an explicit call for volunteers[2] by the DPL in 2010. [1] https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2010/05/msg00105.html Over the years, several important discussions have happened on the debian-private mailing list that needed to stay private. Oftentimes, when a discussion has carried on for a while, some participants have reminded others that the discussion should be summarized in a public thread on either the debian-devel or the debian-project mailing lists. While we agree with the intentions behind the original GR, we believe it is now time to acknowledge that the declassification of debian-private will never happen, and that we should instead strongly encourage developers to move discussions to public channels as soon as the sensitivity of the discussion subsides. We therefore propose the following General Resolution: === BEGIN GR TEXT === Title: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private. 1. The 2005 General Resolution titled "Declassification of debian-private list archives" is repealed. 2. In keeping with paragraph 3 of the Debian Social Contract, Debian Developers are strongly encouraged to use the debian-private mailing list only for discussions that should not be disclosed. === END GR TEXT === Thanks for your consideration, -- Nicolas Dandrimont (with thanks to all who helped writing this) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
* Luca Falavigna [2014-10-18 12:21:18 +0200]: > Dear fellow Developers, > > I would like to propose the following amendment proposal, > and I hereby call for seconds. > > ** Begin Alternative Proposal ** > > [snip] > > 2. Specific init systems as PID 1 > > Debian packages may require a specific init system to be executed > as PID 1 if their maintainers consider this a requisite for its proper > operation by clearly mark this in package descriptions and/or ^- missing an ing > by adding dependencies in order to enforce this; and no patches > or other derived works exist in order to support other init systems > in such a way to render software usable to the same extent. > > [snip] > > ** End Proposal ** Thank you for bringing this proposal up. Seconded. Cheers, -- Nicolas Dandrimont BOFH excuse #404: Sysadmin accidentally destroyed pager with a large hammer. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
