Re: General Resolution to deploy tag2upload
Hi, > Two comments, one more emotional and one more analytical: > > * Part of my gut feeling is that the call for a GR might be a bit > premature, as I have the feeling that especially Gannef is not > opposed to t2u in general but is trying to work out how it might > work; and I really appreciate this positive attitude! This is how I feel as well. I'm doing my best to follow the discussion since its beginning, so far having no major concerns about t2u implementation itself, but disliking the way this suddenly became, apparently, the most urgent thing in the project. > * On the other hand, I have the impression, based on my own > experiences with the FTP team, that this can go on for another 5 > years or longer, as the FTP team usually avoids taking any formal > decisions; and this (meta level now) comes from the fact the no > delegated or ad-hoc team in Debian (except the TC) has any > bylaws/procedures for taking a decision, so it's easier to just not > decide. > > Not sure what my conclusion might be; maybe something like "Wait for > 4 more weeks for an official statement of the FTP team, and failing > that, call for a GR." I agree with the above. Not certain about 2, 4, 12 weeks... But such a direction would definitely reduce the potential for a disruption in an important part of Debian, at the (small?) cost of a possible implementation delay that wouldn't result in any important damage here, in my view. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: new proposal: free and and non-free installers with SC change
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 03:00:26PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi, > > I'm looking seconds for this new proposal below, which is like > proposal E plus *also* offering free installer image. > > Rationale: we should keep producing fully freely distributable > Debian installer images, for those cases were some included non-free > stuff else might limit distribution, eg to Iran or Cuba etc or > by imposing other restrictions...! > > > - > Proposal F > > This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation > document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1 > majority. > > The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is identical > to the current version in all respects except that it adds the following > sentence to the end of point 5: > > The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not > part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that > requires such firmware. > > The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the day: > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware" > section of the Debian archive on our official media (installer images and > live images). The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by > default where the system determines that they are required, but where > possible we will include ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu > option, kernel command line etc.). > > When the installer/live system is running we will provide information to the > user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and non-free), and we > will also store that information on the target system such that users will be > able to find it later. Where non-free firmware is found to be necessary, the > target system will also be configured to use the non-free-firmware component > by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should receive security > updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just like any other > installed software. > > We will publish these images as official Debian media, alongside the current > media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages. > > --- > > (This is exactly "Proposal E" as found on > https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_003 > now, except that in the very last sentence the word "replacing" has > been replaced with "alongside".) > > > -- > cheers, > Holger > > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C > ⠈⠳⣄ > > The wrong Amazon is burning. Seconded. Thanks Holger! -- Tiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian > > > *required* a non-DFSG image. > > > > would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official > > images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"? > > It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users > can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be > called official or not. Same here. I've seconded Gunnar's proposal because it's the one which adds the option. However, referring to it as official is not something I'm fully comfortable at this point. I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience (?) Btw, thanks Steve and all involved on this front, I'm just a bit confused and appreciating the discussion. Bests, -- Tiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original > proposal. > > I'm only suggesting to modify the third paragraph, offering to produce > two sets of images (fully-free and with-non-free-firmware), being the > later more prominent. > > = > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the > "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official > media (installer images and live images). The included firmware > binaries will *normally* be enabled by default where the system > determines that they are required, but where possible we will include > ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel > command line etc.). > > When the installer/live system is running we will provide information > to the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and > non-free), and we will also store that information on the target > system such that users will be able to find it later. The target > system will *also* be configured to use the non-free-firmware > component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our users should > receive security updates and important fixes to firmware binaries just > like any other installed software. > > While we will publish these images as official Debian media, they will > *not* replace the current media sets that do not include non-free > firmware packages, but offered alongside. Images that do include > non-free firmware will be presented more prominently, so that > newcomers will find them more easily; fully-free images will not be > hidden away; they will be linked from the same project pages, but with > less visual priority. > > = Seconded. -- Tiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
On 2022-04-05 17:02, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> I think this thread has largely petered out, with many people having laid >> out the reasons why Debian taking a public position on this is not >> necessarily a good idea. >> >> But I don't think it should go unadddressed that it's quite a bizarre twist >> to go from "our priorities are our users and Free Software" to "we care >> about evil users". > [...] > > Thank you, Steve, for writing what you wrote. I felt the same but couldn't > put it into words this well and I also didn't want to contribute to this > thread. But now it's good that you expressed this so well. I too smashed my brain trying to organize those words. Now I was trying to write a thanks to Steve and then Holger just wrote the words I had in mind. Thanks to you both then :-) Bests, -- tiago
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, It seems there's much more behind the scenes than I happen to know... So, with the little context I have, I keep believing that your reimbursement request is appropriate. And, for *just* not following the proper procedure, such a request shouldn't be ultimately refused, IMO. Bests, -- Tiago On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 08:47:10PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Tiago, > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:09 AM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz > wrote: > > > > Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this > > thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify > > how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? > > > > Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at > > the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL > > campaign period in which you are both candidates? > > > > In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be > > quickly approved. > > Look, the discussion with Richard was about the process for > disbursements. I like the idea of committees that are on schedule and > open to the public. > > Despite the collateral damage Jonathan suffered for the missing > reimbursement (which people in power have to endure) I did not intend > to embarrass him, yet that's where we are taking this thread. > > Jonathan is a busy guy. In fact, he is so busy he too would benefit if > other folks handled the disbursements. It would be a win-win for > everyone. > > My messages may also have gotten stuck in Jonathan's spam filter. > > It furthermore seems that I did not follow the proper process when > filing my request, as Paul Wise pointed out. > > Either way, you challenged me for the true record. Below, you will > find the exchange you are interested in. I redacted both of Jonathan's > responses in case he wrote them. As you can see, I wrote a lot in > private, but was ineffective. > > Similar to my other responses, I am committed to transparency when possible. > > For context you will need to know that my internal hindrances with > operating lintian.d.o—which we resurrected after years of spotty > service—did not start (or end) with the misplaced reimbursement. In > RT#8464 from November 2020, you will find a partial record of the > dispute. (The ticket contains one of the few irate emails I have > written in Debian; it may have contributed to my DAM warning.) To this > day, there has been nothing but obstruction. > > In my mind, the missing reimbursement simply made that point one more time. > > Jonathan witnessed some of my issues, but he did not cause them. In > Debian, too much power is held away from the public eye. We have Setec > Astronomy. Hence my open and public committees. > > Thanks for supporting my reimbursement request! > > Kind regards, > Felix Lechner > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Felix Lechner > Date: Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 7:45 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Jonathan Carter > > Hi Jonathan, > > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:01 AM Jonathan Carter wrote: > > > > [excerpt of posting to debian-private] > > For over a year, I contemplated writing this request. As part of my > contributions to Debian I operate the website lintian.d.o. Untarring > and scanning the archive uses lots of resources. The service is > heavily disk-bound. > > It would help to upgrade one of my machines to an NVMe SSD. The > machine also needs more memory (currently 24 GB). I would not normally > make the upgrades. Would the project please help out with the proposed > purchase? > > The details in the amount of approximately US$217 are below. Thanks! > > Kind regards > Felix Lechner > > * * * > > SAMSUNG (MZ-V8V1T0B/AM) 980 SSD 1TB, $120 > Dual M.2 PCIE Adapter for SATA or PCIE NVMe, $16 > Patriot 16GB(2x8GB) Viper III DDR3 1600MHz CL9, $60 > Subtotal $196 > Sales Tax $21 > Total $217 > > All amounts are in US dollars. The seller is Amazon.com. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jonathan Carter > Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:57 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Felix Lechner > > [redacted for privacy] > > -Jonathan > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jonathan Carter > Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:53 AM > Subject: Re: Spending Debian money, [redacted] > To: Felix Lechner > > Hi Felix > > [redacted for privacy] > > -Jonathan > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Felix Lechner > Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM > Subjec
Re: General resolution: Condemn Russian invasion of the Ukraine
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 07:22:32PM +, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode 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. > > > > This is a proposal for Debian to issue a statement on an > > issue of the day as given as an example, the recent invasion > > of Ukraine. > > > > Text of GR > > > > The Debian project issues the following statement: > > > > The Debian project strongly condemns the invasion of Ukraine by > > Russia. The Debian projects affirms that Ukrain is a souvereign > > nation which includes the Donbas regions of Luhansk, as well as > > Crimea, which has already been illegaly annexed by Russia. > > In the previous GR I offered an amendment: > > 2) General resolutions that probe developpers opinions about > non-technical issues outside the social contract are discouraged. > > I also wrote > "" > For the record, I am not actually in favor of holding secret votes, even > thought I fully agree with the developpers who felt that voting might > open them to abuse, because the issues raised by GR 2021_002 are much > more serious than the secret vote issue, viz, that the Debian project is > not the collection of opinions of its members since the members only > agreed to fulfill the social contract when acting on behalf of Debian > and not in general, and that their opinions outside of this is a private > matter that must not be probbed, and that even the agregate result of > the vote is already leaking information that the Debian project has no > purpose to gather and publish. > "" > > It seems it is necessarry to repeat it... > > In this instance, Debian taking a public position on this could lead > to harm toward some Debian members, independently of their vote and > is unlikely to achieve much. I'm glad to see that secret votes as we have now didn't seem to encourage 'opinions about non-technical issues outside the social contract'. So far, such GR proposal reached zero support, possibly an indication that we didn't need to keep publishing individual votes in order to collectively keep common sense. Thus, although I agree with your concerns, I keep believing that a correlation between vote secrecy and arbitrary GRs is currently absent in our project. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Hi Felix, On 2022-03-24 8:18 p.m., Felix Lechner wrote: [...] > > For example, I requested $217 for a one-time SSD & RAM upgrade to help > operate lintian.d.o in November of 2021. My request was not granted. I > didn't even receive a response from Jonathan (other than a request for > more information, with which I complied) even though I followed up on > my request. Given that Jonathan, after lots of research as he describes in this thread, has stated that such request never reached him, can you clarify how can you have even complied to a request for more information from him? Also, if that's the case, why didn't you try to reach him in private at the time rather than bringing it to -vote months later, during an DPL campaign period in which you are both candidates? In my view, your request was totally eligible and could/should be quickly approved. Thanks, -- Tiago
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 05:23:42PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Molly, > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:42 AM Molly dB wrote: > > > > If a Debian contributor > > was being harassed due to their involvement with the project, what > > responsibilities do you think the project would have to them? > > Did the project provide assistance to you, and do you worry that the > assistance might not continue if I am elected? Thank you! I have to say I feel really troubled by reading this. It's hard to believe that a candidate for DPL addresses a legitimate and quite sensitive question with such a rhetorical passive-aggressive borderline-bullying response. Well, at least it makes the voting easier for me. -- Tiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Reaffirm public voting
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100: > > > [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia > > Rizzolo ]] > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > >> Reaffirm public voting > >> == > >> > >> Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have > >> open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting > >> system as it is. > >> > >> Rationale: > >> > >> The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details, > >> probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to > >> achieve fully, so this GR is bound to a similar fate as the 'publish > >> debian-private' vote, which was voted for and then was never implemented. > >> > >> A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and > >> will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals > >> of openness and transparency. > >> > >> And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which > >> is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot, > >> and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option. > >> > >> I'm seeking sponsors for this amendment to the current GR. > > > > > > Assuming you meant this as "this ballot" instead of "this amendment" > > (following the new GR flow), I sponsor this. > > > > > > > > If I were to add my thoughts: political GRs don't belong in Debian, > > please take them elsewhere. For non-political votes there is no use > > for private voting. > > Is init systems GR a political GR? > > I'm pretty sure some gave double thoughts before voting because of the > shitstorm/flame that had happened before the vote. Not only that, but also conflicts of interest involving an employer may have influence over a non-political vote (or the willingness to vote). This has been argued already it seems. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting
Hi, On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:46:16PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: [...] > I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way > contradicts our principles of transparency¹, but that got no replies > whatsoever. > > ¹ https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/yg+tfywh09xmp...@debian.org > > I think that is a reasonable concern, but I'm not sure how exactly we > are losing transparency here. Let's see; if we were to decide that all > votes are public, then: s/public/private? > - the discussion of the GR itself, the formulation of ballot options, > and the debate about them, is still public and transparent; or at > least as public and transparent as they currently are. > > - the final ballot and the call for votes are still public. > > - the positions of all the people who participated in the public > discussions is still public. > > - the only change is that after the vote, you cannot see how exactly > each individual voted. I understand the argument that Debian decisions > are of public interest. But how exactly being able to know how each of > us voted helps with that? Are we harvesting peoples votes to be able > to throw stuff in their faces stuff like "You say that now, but back > in the day when we voted on XXX you favored YYY? You are part of the > problem!". > > I get that knowing what people you like/respect/admire/collaborate > think about an issue can be useful to form your own opinion, but > that's only really useful if done before the vote, not after. And for > that you would need to ask them explicitly anyway. Agreed, I don't believe that individual position on votes make the project more transparent. Nor internally, as Terceiro well pointed. Nor externally, since DDs don't represent anyone but themselves inside the project. Even if I happen to be convinced that votes being public brings a few extra bits of transparency, I'd probably think it still makes more harm than good. Regarding the 'public as an option' ballot: it's not hard to imagine a(nother) controversial GR where people voting X>Y would be more likely to make it public, while those voting Y>X would be strongly inclined to keep it private -- therefore creating material for assumptions, which can certainly lead to intimidation. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 05:44:34AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
> that makes the following changes to the constitution.
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote public.
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
>of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
>confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
> So it's the proposed GR minus the changes
> not directly related to introducing secret votes.
>
> I ask for seconds aka sponsors for this Option.
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> Give the opportunity to vote for secret voting without needing to
> additionally vote for unrelated/only slightly related
> constitution changes;
> for example for the change of mode of voting
> from email to something not defined.
>
> As it was mentioned in the discussion,
> there might be no consensus on which options are direcly related -
> This option regards the need to allow verification (6))
> as directly related to secret votes, because otherwise
> they would become completely unverifiable.
>
> Summary of Changes
> ==
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
>public.
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
>of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
>confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
>
> 4.2. Procedure
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
>vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes {+cast in sufficient
> detail that anyone may verify the outcome of the election from the votes
> cast. The+}
> {+ identity of a developer casting a particular vote is not made+}
> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm their vote
> is included in the votes+} cast.
>
> @@ -371,8 +390,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
> necessary.
>
> The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> Developers may cast their votes. [-Votes in leadership elections are-]
> [- kept secret, even after the election is finished.-]{++}
>
Seconded.
--
Tiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Hi, On 2021-04-02 6:44 p.m., Salvo Tomaselli wrote: >> I sincerely think debian-vote should be read-only for non-DDs because > this person is not a DD (afaict) and is just polluting our list with > such non-sense. > > > There are non-DD people who maintain more packages and with higher total > popcon than DDs, but aren't DD because didn't bother to jump through all > the several hoops to become a DD. > > > If you do not want DMs, make a proposal and vote to kick all the DMs out > from Debian. If it passes then be ready to adopt a few hundreds of > packages or see debian crash and burn. Zlatan made a mistake, the person is in fact a DD, who isn't listed in the NM system because at the time he joined the process wasn't the same as today's. However, his point had nothing to do with "not wanting DMs", but to the fact that if one is not a DD, they don't have the rights to propose/sign an option for the GR. So, due to his initial mistake he inferred the person was possibly trolling. Please, let's calm down a bit. This thread is already enormous, exhausting, and became a trap for such negative reactions mostly due to lacking context. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again. Option 6: "Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about". Come on folks, we can do better than that! -- Tiago
Re: Announcing new decision making procedures for Debian
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 19:53 Enrico Zini wrote: > Hello Debian Members, > > For some time, we have been having systemic issues that make GR > discussions painful. GRs themselves shouldn't be painful, and don't need > to be. Having a chilling effect to using GRs hurts Debian, and as a > project we need a way to poll for consensus on project choices and > directions more often than not. > > To overcome the current problems with GR discussions, we introduce a > replacement weighted democratic system. The new procedure is this: > > * A developer proposes an issue with a signed message on >debian-vote@lists.debian.org . > > * Anyone can express their consent or dissent by replying to the >message. > > * When the discussion eventually dies down, the Debian Secretary will >review all messages and pronounce the winner. in Kurt we trust. > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > Just to be crystal clear if it wasn't already, this is all satire. bad pollo! much love, -- Tiago
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
[...] > > > > Libreboot explanation can be helpful here: > > > > https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html > > I stopped reading after "Thought Criminal", "accused of defending rape > in an Orwellian smear campaign" and "orchestrated by mainstream media". Lucky you, as it goes deeper on such nonsene drama, then quickly escalating to some cheap conspiracy theories. It's sad too see the amount of distracion we're facing on this discussion. Bests, -- Tiago
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: opinion on Choice 1
On 2021-03-30 8:10 a.m., Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> >> I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that >> their expression should always be free. > > Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] This is getting extremely boring. Please go exercise your OT free speech rights in a private channel with whoever is willing to. -- tiago
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 03:21:09PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: [...] > Anyway, thank you for clarifying that using people's preferred > pronouns is a requisite for being welcome in Debian. As I read them, > neither the CoC nor the Diversity Statement are explicit on that. > Maybe it would be useful to make it explicit? No. We're supposed to be adults and know what 'Be respectful' means. That simple, yes. -- tiago
Re: Q to Mehdi: safe and fun
Hi, On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 06:58:36AM +0100, Martín Ferrari wrote: > Mehdi, > > In your platform you list "Ensuring the community remains safe and fun" > as your first priority for the next term. > > I need to ask why you think in this term you will manage to do so, when > I believe you failed to do so in the last year. Being also touched by the same issues so many times I share Martín's concerns here. [...] > It seems that Debian has not yet managed to get rid of the “But he does > good work” mentality. Exactly. As a local, I'm quite involved in DebConf orga this year and can state that this mentality is still quite present, unfortunately. Thanks Martín for bringing this. I'd like to hear both candidates about this matter. Bests, -- tiago
