Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ... On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:41:22AM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote: > This pretty much pleads agains proposal E. The constitution is long. Proposal E is not long. > Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of proposal C will > allow for a speedy release of sarge if it were up to the TC? No. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but > informally >http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html If the RM has delegated the descision of the requirements for distributing sarge, could the TC take a stance on the proposals presented? Well looking at that post some of the points were: | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ... This pretty much pleads agains proposal E. | ... Any such grandfather resolution should probably delegate reasonably | wide discretion about scope and interpretation to the Release Manager, | the Project Leader, the Committee or some other similar person or body, | to ensure that the resolution is sufficient and we don't need another | GR. ... Well none of the proposals really seem to do this, except for maybe proposals C and E. All the others fall back to the previous (ambiguous) SC. Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of proposal C will allow for a speedy release of sarge if it were up to the TC? - -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA2MOmVYan35+NCKcRArucAKCVSmfDlGmSbIUodR70NU2ajkkdUgCgyu9b XlmXyfD8bGJtE6X28lZNDzg= =dSqs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 09:41, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but
> > informally
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html
>
> If the RM has delegated the descision of the requirements for distributing
> sarge, could the TC take a stance on the proposals presented?
>
> Well looking at that post some of the points were:
>
> | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ...
>
> This pretty much pleads agains proposal E.
>
> | ... Any such grandfather resolution should probably delegate reasonably
> | wide discretion about scope and interpretation to the Release Manager,
> | the Project Leader, the Committee or some other similar person or body,
> | to ensure that the resolution is sufficient and we don't need another
> | GR. ...
>
> Well none of the proposals really seem to do this, except for maybe
> proposals C and E. All the others fall back to the previous (ambiguous)
> SC.
>
> Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of proposal C will
> allow for a speedy release of sarge if it were up to the TC?
What would perhaps be ideal, reading the above about a 'grandfather
clause', is proposal (F?) Further Discussion, then have a new ballot
with simply two options:
A) Grandfather clause granting wide SC override discretion to RM/TC,
probably limited to the next release.
B) Further discussion.
If, as it generally seems to be the case, the new SC, as amended, really
is what the voting constituents prefer, yet they would like to release
without further delays, this would be the "cleanest" approach surely?
No further, possibly ambiguous amendments. Release without further
delays. SC stands as ("desirably") amended. Perhaps I could go so far as
to say The Right Thing (TM)?
Of course as a self-proclaimed Free Software bigot, perhaps I shouldn't
really be suggesting this in the first place :/
Oh well, good luck,
Zen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:58:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andrew Suffield: > > >> The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and > >> data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the > >> lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months > >> until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further classes > >> of non-programs which aren't on the radar at this point probably > >> exist, too. > > > > Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is, > > it was settled a long time ago. > > Where's the settlement with respect to fonts? Wrong question. Take a specific package and ask -legal for an analysis. "fonts" is far too vague. I have not yet seen a sourceless font in Debian, although I haven't really been looking. It is possible for such things to exist. It is unlikely that you use any, unless you use the MS truetype fonts. > And what about > technical vector drawings that have been converted to bitmaps by > upstream? Again too vague. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield: >> The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and >> data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the >> lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months >> until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further classes >> of non-programs which aren't on the radar at this point probably >> exist, too. > > Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is, > it was settled a long time ago. Where's the settlement with respect to fonts? And what about technical vector drawings that have been converted to bitmaps by upstream? -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: bigpond.com, di-ve.com, fuorissimo.com, hotmail.com, jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote: > And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the > release manager somewhere regarding this vote? The release manager has said that he feels making release policy without the involvement of the rest of the project was a mistake, and he's delegated this issue to the technical committee. The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but informally http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Well, most of those supporters probably did not believe the proposal > would or should have any effect on sarge's release. > > At least that was the case for me... And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the release manager somewhere regarding this vote? I would like to know exactly what effect the different choices would have on the release of sarge, accoring to the release manager. I have searched some lists a little but did not really find an answer to my question. Some of the questions that come to mind are: Can sarge realisticly be released before september 1st? (related to proposal A) Does the temporal change of the SC and rollback after the release of sarge cause problems for point releases of sarge? (related to several proposals) Does the list of "exempt" items from proposal C (documentation and firmware) cover enough items to be in line with the earlier release plan [1]? Is the next release really numbered 3.1? (relating to proposals C and E) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/12/msg0.html - -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA1vx+VYan35+NCKcRAtqCAKCBttN93dDfMmbYimfx6GvB3FItwQCgorsI cuD2Q7nNong5G4tBO8l16lM= =lqsX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 05:19:22PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote: > And to not make the same mistake twice, is there some statement from the > release manager somewhere regarding this vote? I would like to know > exactly what effect the different choices would have on the release of > sarge, accoring to the release manager. Last I saw, the release manager's statement was something approximating "read the proposals and think out the issues for yourself". > Is the next release really numbered 3.1? (relating to proposals C and E) Yes. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RM> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: >> be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the >> wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or >> reverting the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me. RM> At least three of the ballot options do not have this character. One of the three is what I'm going to vote for. I've already mentioned my objections to Proposal F. As for Proposal E, you're right it doesn't modify the previous GR, but I still don't like it -- it pretends changes in the social contract and adds another (possibly useless) Foundation Document. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- "Having GNU Emacs is like having a dragon's cave of treasures." Robert J. Chassell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 08:41:55AM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: > be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the > wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or reverting > the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me. At least three of the ballot options do not have this character. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
Andrew Suffield schrieb: > Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is, > it was settled a long time ago. If "long time ago" was before the last GR - situation has changed since then. Ciao, Eike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040621 00:40]: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Andrew Suffield: > > > > > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely > > > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time > > > to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases. > > > > The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and > > data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the > > lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months > > until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further classes > > of non-programs which aren't on the radar at this point probably > > exist, too. > > Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is, > it was settled a long time ago. Anybody who reads -legal could tell > you that. I don't know who has been going around claiming otherwise, > but it's pure fabrication. Perhaps you may want to answer to Florians reasons, instead of saying "Nonesense" and "pure fabrication". Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> "ES" == Eike \"zyro\" Sauer writes: ES> Milan Zamazal schrieb: >> so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by >> making and reverting changes without really good reasons. ES> Adult people should not be afraid of undoing bad decisions, and ES> "We will not hide problems". I don't think the decision was bad, I think it has only raised bad consequences. And those don't make (IMO) a sufficiently good reason to revert the decision itself. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- The rush to reproduce Microsofts window environment seems to overshadow the design process of determining what a window environment should be, and what its ultimate users will want. -- Barry Fishman in gnu.misc.discuss -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> "RM" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RM> On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: >> My analysis is that this GR is simply insane. RM> You think it's out of touch with reality? Yes, I feel it as a sort of artificial or exaggerated problem. RM> The previous GR eliminated ambiguity from the social contract. RM> Do you disagree? No. RM> Our previous release policy was valid under an interpretation of RM> the old social contract which is not present in the new social RM> contract. RM> Do you disagree? I don't think the clarification changed anything in the spirit of the Social Contract. E.g. while the old SC spoke about "software" and not "works", a lot of non-free documents was still placed in non-free and not main. I think the sarge related SC/DFSG problems would demand the same attention under the old SC, despite solution of some of them could be abused by focusing on the exact wording of the SC. Taking the wording literally and "solving" the problems by postponing or reverting the SC changes looks like an ugly hack to me. Regards, Milan Zamazal -- It's amazing how much better you feel once you've given up hope. (unknown source) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> > Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh? On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Oh, come on. That was not an argument, therefore it cannot *possibly* > be an instance of argumentum ad hominem. How is missing the point of what he said relevant? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary > > > rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it > > > should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure > > > why. > > > > Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh? > > Oh, come on. That was not an argument, therefore it cannot *possibly* > be an instance of argumentum ad hominem. Andreas didn't say "argument", he said "attack". This is a tangent, though. Let's cut it. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary > > rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it > > should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure > > why. > > Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh? Oh, come on. That was not an argument, therefore it cannot *possibly* be an instance of argumentum ad hominem. It was simply data, so that people can evaluate your statements in context; I see no reason to posit an actual argument, as any rational person should be able to figure it out on their own. "Data which I do not like" does not constitute argumentum ad hominem. The world is full of things that you don't like, and you don't get to reject them just because you don't like them. I'm getting really tired of this cargo-cult approach to debate that has appeared on the mailing lists in the past year or two. "argumentum ad hominem" is precisely the set of arguments that say "This argument is wrong because of (some feature of) the person that said it". These arguments are fallacious. Nothing else about them is significant. Labelling everything you find objectionable as "ad hominem" is pointless, because it's wrong. It is *absolutely not the case* that "anything which reflects badly on a given person is wrong". You only get to invoke the classical fallacies as a short-circuit to avoid a full response when the argument proposed *is* one of the classical fallacies. Their purpose is simply to avoid spending time explaining the nature of the fallacy - it is assumed that everybody involved understands why it is wrong, and you are simply pointing this out as a substitute for the standard response. Furthermore you are expected to explain the fallacy if somebody involved does not understand it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:29:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Andrew Suffield: > > > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely > > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time > > to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases. > > The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and > data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the > lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months > until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further classes > of non-programs which aren't on the radar at this point probably > exist, too. Nonsense. There is generally nothing to discuss, and where there is, it was settled a long time ago. Anybody who reads -legal could tell you that. I don't know who has been going around claiming otherwise, but it's pure fabrication. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
Milan Zamazal schrieb: > so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by making > and reverting changes without really good reasons. Adult people should not be afraid of undoing bad decisions, and "We will not hide problems". Ciao, Eike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 23:10]: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the > > proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri, > > Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the > > constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it > > also spoke about the release interval, see > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html > > | I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads > > | now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and > > | must needs go on another ballot, and another vote. > Hmm, yeah, the short point appeared to have gotten sidetracked by all that > verbiage, and the promise of yearly release sounds optimistic at best. Well, the promise was only to do regular releases. ;) The "about once a year" was only a guide-line. (I know why I wrote it this soft way, and not hard.) > I'd second a resolution that simply said that we acknowledge that the > meaning of the first clause of the social contract, regardless of whether > we say "free according to the DFSG" or "free software" or "free monkeys", > is not set in stone and its interpretation is variable. > > Another option on the same resolution would be that the interpretation > is exactly this-and-that, but with the difference that the people would > actually be voting for or against something concrete and their votes > couldn't be interpreted to mean something else than what was advertized > and what they intended. Well, as the current vote has already started, we can take our time after the vote to see if we really need to make another vote. I'd like to don't do it, but - well, I don't expect it. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 11:05:37PM +0200, joy wrote: > > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the > > proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri, > > Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the > > constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it > > also spoke about the release interval, see > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html > > | I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads > > | now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and > > | must needs go on another ballot, and another vote. > > Hmm, yeah, the short point appeared to have gotten sidetracked by all that > verbiage, and the promise of yearly release sounds optimistic at best. > > I'd second a resolution that simply said that we acknowledge that the > meaning of the first clause of the social contract, regardless of whether > we say "free according to the DFSG" or "free software" or "free monkeys", > is not set in stone and its interpretation is variable. > > Another option on the same resolution would be that the interpretation > is exactly this-and-that, Also worth noting is that one option on the same resolution could be that the interpretation is whatever the current release manager says. Not that I necessarily agree with this, but it would avoid the issue I raised in Message Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (back in April). -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > > > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > > > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > > > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. > > > Not allowed? Really? And all this time I thought that my opinion was simply > > in a minority so small that nobody bothered making a proposal out of it! :) > > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the > proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri, > Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the > constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it > also spoke about the release interval, see > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html > | I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads > | now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and > | must needs go on another ballot, and another vote. Hmm, yeah, the short point appeared to have gotten sidetracked by all that verbiage, and the promise of yearly release sounds optimistic at best. I'd second a resolution that simply said that we acknowledge that the meaning of the first clause of the social contract, regardless of whether we say "free according to the DFSG" or "free software" or "free monkeys", is not set in stone and its interpretation is variable. Another option on the same resolution would be that the interpretation is exactly this-and-that, but with the difference that the people would actually be voting for or against something concrete and their votes couldn't be interpreted to mean something else than what was advertized and what they intended. ``Eliminate or expand inaccurate references to "software".'' *snicker* *sigh* -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 08:47:56PM +0200, Milan Zamazal wrote: > My analysis is that this GR is simply insane. You think it's out of touch with reality? > The previous GR (2004 vote 003) was presented as editorial amendments, > so it can hardly have significant influence on our releases. From this > point of view proposals A, B, C, E make no sense to me. The previous GR eliminated ambiguity from the social contract. Do you disagree? Our previous release policy was valid under an interpretation of the old social contract which is not present in the new social contract. Do you disagree? Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield: > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time > to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases. The discussion about fonts, closed and semi-closed data formats, and data formats which are inherently lossy and for which we lack the lossless source files has not really started yet. It will take months until Debian agrees on policies for these cases, and further classes of non-programs which aren't on the radar at this point probably exist, too. It's extremely shortsighted to think that this is just about documentation and firmware. -- Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the following domains: bigpond.com, di-ve.com, fuorissimo.com, hotmail.com, jumpy.it, libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.com. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Chris Cheney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 19:40]: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by: > > - a current stable release > > - free software > > > > At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable release contains > > items which are non-free, according to your interpretation of the > > social contract (have you ever taken a look to > > /usr/share/info/gcc-295.info.gz on a woody system?). > > > > For someone who lives in the real world, and where time does matter, > > I'm convinced that we should release now, and that also our social > > contract encourages this. You may of course disagree, but please stop > > ad-hominem attacks, and malicious gossip. Thanks. > You're real world doesn't look like mine at least unless you intend to > release Sarge with nearly 300 RC bugs? By the time all those RC bugs > are fixed we could easily have removed all the non-free software from > Debian main as well... I consider the opinion of the release managers to be a better guide on what blocks the release of sarge than my opinion or a glance at the RC bug count. Please see e.g. Colin Watsons mail on http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/06/msg01086.html | > This is not the only thing holding up sarge. | | It's the biggest, and crucially it's the showstopper with the greatest | uncertainty attached to it. People who've done any release management | know that you need to resolve the items with the greatest uncertainty as | early as possible; it is not possible to plan otherwise. (This is why | there's been no release plan posted lately, because we basically | can't.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 17:10]: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. > Not allowed? Really? And all this time I thought that my opinion was simply > in a minority so small that nobody bothered making a proposal out of it! :) See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html (for the proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri, Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it also spoke about the release interval, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html | I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads | now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and | must needs go on another ballot, and another vote. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:32:24PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote: > You're real world doesn't look like mine at least unless you intend to > release Sarge with nearly 300 RC bugs? By the time all those RC bugs > are fixed we could easily have removed all the non-free software from > Debian main as well... Two problems: 1. Removing things will surely introduce new bugs. 2. We have enough to do fixing some hundreds of RC bugs, I don't like another discration. Let us release sarge ASAP - not before - and do other important things - hive off non-free, multi-arch - later. Cheers, WB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
My analysis is that this GR is simply insane. The previous GR (2004 vote 003) was presented as editorial amendments, so it can hardly have significant influence on our releases. From this point of view proposals A, B, C, E make no sense to me. I can't see any good reason to support proposal F -- Social Contract already defines our goals which we may successfully meet or we may (despite our best efforts) fail on them (we may fail to release sarge without any DFSG problems or we may fail to release any further stable version at all). Proposal D may make sense if one feels fooled by presenting the previous GR as editorial amendments and wants to revert it for that reason. But in any case, I don't think the changes to DFSG are wrong, so Debian shouldn't make to look itself even more foolish by making and reverting changes without really good reasons. IMHO the proper response to this insane GR is --1 (without actually performing Further Discussion after the voting ends). And I won't repeat my mistake of ignoring the votings I don't consider significant enough. Milan Zamazal -- I think any law that restricts independent use of brainpower is suspect. -- Kent Pitman in comp.lang.lisp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 10:59:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by: > - a current stable release > - free software > > At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable release contains > items which are non-free, according to your interpretation of the > social contract (have you ever taken a look to > /usr/share/info/gcc-295.info.gz on a woody system?). > > For someone who lives in the real world, and where time does matter, > I'm convinced that we should release now, and that also our social > contract encourages this. You may of course disagree, but please stop > ad-hominem attacks, and malicious gossip. Thanks. You're real world doesn't look like mine at least unless you intend to release Sarge with nearly 300 RC bugs? By the time all those RC bugs are fixed we could easily have removed all the non-free software from Debian main as well... Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. Not allowed? Really? And all this time I thought that my opinion was simply in a minority so small that nobody bothered making a proposal out of it! :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 07:47:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it > > > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3 > > > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more > > > important than being ready" option. Option 6 is the "better rather > > > than sooner" option. > > > > Non sequitur - the premise is vaguely correct, but I disagree that the two > > conclusions follow from it. It doesn't make sense to me that readiness and > > usability of Debian releases are to be achieved by removing stuff that > > was not supposed to be removed just a while ago. > > Only if you take it as a given that the old release policy was > correct. Otherwise it's just that heads have been forcibly removed > from the sand now. Well, the old release policy can't have been all that wrong given that nobody actually proposed changing it -- the proposal was clearly aimed at clarifying the language of the social contract, not at changing its intent and/or purpose. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> > Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems > > resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all > > examples of problems we're trying to avoid. On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 01:39:39PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: > Does "can't be used" include "had its documentation removed"? Obviously, that's one of the problems we're trying to decide how to address. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 05:25]: > But I was responding to the claim that "my" camp is somehow not > interested in the well-being of our users, or that "we" place it > second-best. We place it first-best--just as you do; the disagreement > is not about whether or how important it is to help our users. That's a good summary. I responded to the same claim. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 03:40]: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not > > important to release. > Hrm. I think giving our users non-free software hurts them. I'm > against hurting our users, therefore I'm against releasing non-free > software. Please see /usr/share/info/gcc-295.info.gz in woody. Do you consider it more worse to replace that file with the appropriate file from sarge? I'm also against releasing non-free software, but I'm even more against not releasing at all. So, at the moment, I consider it the right thing to do to release sarge _now_, and resolve the kernel issues etc after that. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 01:10]: > [This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for > people who haven't followed -vote] > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. > Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary > rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it > should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure > why. Ah, never retain from a ad-hominem attacks, eh? > Here's the thread root: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html > > And here's Manoj's brief analysis: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00024.html The reason is - as discussed on d-vote - that dropping half of the statement (the part about "our social contract tells us we should release") does change that proposal in an unacceptable way. Furthermore, a lot of developers asked me - through mail or on IRC - to not put some further option on the ballot to make it not even more difficult. > > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. > > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not > > important to release. > I already covered this one in my first mail, but anyway: this is based > on the assumption that our users are best served by non-free > software. See the thread parent for a more detailed rebuttal. Are you dumb or a lying? Again: Our users are served good by: - a current stable release - free software At the moment, we don't have any of them. Our stable release contains items which are non-free, according to your interpretation of the social contract (have you ever taken a look to /usr/share/info/gcc-295.info.gz on a woody system?). For someone who lives in the real world, and where time does matter, I'm convinced that we should release now, and that also our social contract encourages this. You may of course disagree, but please stop ad-hominem attacks, and malicious gossip. Thanks. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040620 00:55]: > [This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people > aren't confused] Would you mind to not do ad-hominem attacks? Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 11:43:17PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > [This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people > aren't confused] Yeah, right. > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > > > [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion > > > > > > Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. 2 is the > > > same as 1, but without the time limit. 3 is the same as 2, but is less > > > intrusive > > > > Modifying the social contract permanently (as opposed to temporarily > > overruling it) to address temporary problems is seen as "less > > intrusive"? > > This is factually incorrect; that is not what option 3 does. What? Well, OK. Missed part 2 of that proposal. Sorry; my bad. The rest of what I said stands, though; I think that modifying the SC to add an apology is one bridge too far. The Social Contract is a statement of principles; it should not disvalidate itself. If we cannot follow up on our principles because they happen to conflict[0], then that is a problem; but an explanation of that fact does not belong in that very statement of principles (it should be "somewhere", but not in the SC). Therefore, I resent the idea that option three would be a "refined version" of option one and two. [0] Yes, they conflict. I am aware of your opinion that "having free software" and "doing what's best for our users" can not conflict; however, I disagree. Let me explain: * "Having a distribution that consists entirely of free software" is, indeed, good for our users. Many of our users depend on Debian being entirely free software; changing that without notice wouldn't be nice, so it's better to release only when the distribution is fully free. * "Having a distribution which actually releases within a decent period after the previous release" is also good for our users. Our users are not served best by having horribly outdated software in our latest stable release; the world changes, and so do software requirements. For some of our users (and their number increases every day as the "woody" release gets older), stable is already completely useless. These two are, at this very moment, in conflict. To get a distribution which is best according to the first argument, we would need to postpone the release. To get a distribution which is best according to the second argument, we would need to release ASAP. The question, however, is not what is "good" for our users (both courses of action are, depending on the POV); the question is what's "best" for our users. To answer that question, we have to decide how bad it is that the software in "woody" is outdated. Some people, including you, have the opinion that it is not so bad that we should release sooner rather than later; others, including me and, if I'm not mistaken, Andreas Barth, have the opinion that the problem with woody being outdated has now reached the point where it's more of a problem than the problem where some parts of a stable distribution are non-free. Parts which, I should note, have not been considered as "parts that should be free" in /any/ previous release. > > > Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially > > > orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of > > > "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says > > > "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free > > > release" if you were expecting a free release. > > > > Actually, it says "we reaffirm the previous GR, but it won't be active > > before the next release". > > This is pure fiction. I don't see how. OK, granted, it does not literally say that the previous GR is reaffirmed. However, I don't think that anyone who would want such a transition plan would want to get rid of the previous GR. In practice, if this option is accepted, the previous GR will be accepted as well. The transition plan does, in practice, also lay out when the changes to the SC made by the previous GR will be active: when sarge gets out the door. To quote the proposed transition plan: In the specific case of General Resolution 2004_003, since that release currently in preparation, code named "Sarge", is very close to release, and the previously released version is quite out of date, our commitment to our users dictates that the "Sarge" release should go on as planned - even while we are in the process of reaching compliance with
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems > resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all > examples of problems we're trying to avoid. Does "can't be used" include "had its documentation removed"? b. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > An alternative view is that it hurts our users when we don't support > the software we give them, and that the DFSG and Social Contract > are aimed at making us as effective as possible at supporting > our users. Yes, my point is that we are *all* interested in helping our users, and the disagreement is about what is the best way to help them. I'm happy to discuss what is the best way to help them (though this particular disagreement is sufficiently well-known that I am not sure anything new is left to be said). But I was responding to the claim that "my" camp is somehow not interested in the well-being of our users, or that "we" place it second-best. We place it first-best--just as you do; the disagreement is not about whether or how important it is to help our users. The disagreement is about which is the best way to help them. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 06:18:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Hrm. I think giving our users non-free software hurts them. I'm > against hurting our users, therefore I'm against releasing non-free > software. An alternative view is that it hurts our users when we don't support the software we give them, and that the DFSG and Social Contract are aimed at making us as effective as possible at supporting our users. Software which can't be ported, which can't have security problems resolved, which can't be delivered, and which can't be used are all examples of problems we're trying to avoid. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040619 15:25]: > > Summary: you probably want 3 or 6. > Summary: I don't want a biased summary of someone who broke the > process of the release of sarge. Curious. Andrew Suffield all by himself? What about all those Debian voters that agreed with his proposal? Have you forgotten the 3:1 majority that agreed with Andrew? Yawn. > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not > important to release. Hrm. I think giving our users non-free software hurts them. I'm against hurting our users, therefore I'm against releasing non-free software. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > [...] So, leave it at that, and don't pretend to offer voting > advice when all you really do is advocate your own position. If you want > to advocate your own position, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with > that; but in that case, please say "summary: you probably want 6" > instead of this. Hey everyone. Just in case you have doubts, note that you probably want to vote for 6. [ sorry, couldn't resist ] -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
[This is just a thinly veiled personal attack; filling in the gaps for people who haven't followed -vote] On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. Andreas made an ill-formed proposal which the project secretary rejected for this ballot, and refused all suggestions about how it should be properly formed. He appears to hold a grudge, I'm not sure why. Here's the thread root: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg0.html And here's Manoj's brief analysis: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00024.html > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. > > Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not > important to release. I already covered this one in my first mail, but anyway: this is based on the assumption that our users are best served by non-free software. See the thread parent for a more detailed rebuttal. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
[This guy is a troll; just rebutting the misinformation so that people aren't confused] On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 09:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > > [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion > > > > Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. 2 is the > > same as 1, but without the time limit. 3 is the same as 2, but is less > > intrusive > > Modifying the social contract permanently (as opposed to temporarily > overruling it) to address temporary problems is seen as "less > intrusive"? This is factually incorrect; that is not what option 3 does. > > Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially > > orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of > > "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says > > "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free > > release" if you were expecting a free release. > > Actually, it says "we reaffirm the previous GR, but it won't be active > before the next release". This is pure fiction. > > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. > > Indeed. It also "happens" to be the option you proposed; and you are not > listed as seconder on one of the other options. Irrelevant. > If you think some of the options > shouldn't have been on the ballot, you should've said so before. You > didn't, AFAIK. I did, and furthermore you were aware of that (we've had this discussion before), so now you're just lying outright. The conclusion was that a summary along the lines I wrote was the appropriate way to proceed, rather than removing some of the options from the ballot. > So, leave it at that, and don't pretend to offer voting > advice when all you really do is advocate your own position. If you want > to advocate your own position, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with > that; but in that case, please say "summary: you probably want 6" > instead of this. Except that I am not doing that, but rather providing a concise analysis of the options available for people who haven't been following the discussion. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040619 15:25]: > Summary: you probably want 3 or 6. Summary: I don't want a biased summary of someone who broke the process of the release of sarge. > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot. > Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially > orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of > "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says > "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free > release" if you were expecting a free release. Option 5 is to un-do the breakage done by you. > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. Option 6 is the position that our users don't matter, and it's not important to release. If you think that our priorities are our users and the free software community, and want to get sarge out of the door (and it's now almost two years after the release of woody, which was on July 19th, 2002), so that our users get current, stable software, supported by the security team, you should vote for 1-5. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. At the moment, I think I'm going to vote at least one of those below the default option, and at least one above. Reading between the lines: you plan on voting all three below the default. Good for you, but realize that not everyone shares your point of view. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Summary: you probably want 3 or 6. We've had this discussion a while ago. What's the idea? Getting people to vote the way you think is most appropriate? > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > > [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion > > Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. 2 is the > same as 1, but without the time limit. 3 is the same as 2, but is less > intrusive Modifying the social contract permanently (as opposed to temporarily overruling it) to address temporary problems is seen as "less intrusive"? [...] > It is unfortunate that these three options were not combined, but > there has been something of a buckshot approach to the construction of > this ballot. Option 3 is essentially the refined version of 1 and 2. Maybe in your opinion. Option 3 goes one step further than 1 and 2 in that it further modifies the SC. I for one think that's a bridge too far (I don't want to go through all this *again*). > Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially > orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of > "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says > "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free > release" if you were expecting a free release. Actually, it says "we reaffirm the previous GR, but it won't be active before the next release". It could be seen as a compromise between option 6 and some of the other options on the ballot. > Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. Indeed. It also "happens" to be the option you proposed; and you are not listed as seconder on one of the other options. The discussion period is over, Andrew. If you think some of the options shouldn't have been on the ballot, you should've said so before. You didn't, AFAIK. So, leave it at that, and don't pretend to offer voting advice when all you really do is advocate your own position. If you want to advocate your own position, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that; but in that case, please say "summary: you probably want 6" instead of this. Thanks. [...snip advocating brabble...] -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On 19-Jun-04, 13:48 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > > 6 is about waiting with sarge until we sorted out everything which > > was rendered unfree by the "editorial changes". Which will be a long time. > > Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely > unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time > to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases. Evicting it is trivial. Re-packaging it in a way that is useful for our users may (*may*) not be so easy. Both steps are desirable to a significant fraction of the developers. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > 6 is about waiting with sarge until we sorted out everything which > was rendered unfree by the "editorial changes". Which will be a long time. Ah yes, that's another of those common memes. It's completely unfounded. There is no reason to think that it would take a long time to evict all the offending material - it's trivial in most cases. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it > > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3 > > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more > > important than being ready" option. Option 6 is the "better rather > > than sooner" option. > > Non sequitur - the premise is vaguely correct, but I disagree that the two > conclusions follow from it. It doesn't make sense to me that readiness and > usability of Debian releases are to be achieved by removing stuff that > was not supposed to be removed just a while ago. Only if you take it as a given that the old release policy was correct. Otherwise it's just that heads have been forcibly removed from the sand now. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 03:35:58PM +0200, Eike zyro Sauer wrote: > PS: I'm still sure that 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 include dropping the GPL text > from Debian (AKA suicide) sooner or later. I don't want to discuss this > again, as it has been discussed in depth already, I just want to mention. Yeah, but most people on the lists seem not to be overly worried about that interpretation. I guess the votes on options 4 and 6 respectively will determine what the average Debianites really think, but should 6 prevail over 4, it's better to have voted for something like 3 or 5 and that way at least prevent 6 from winning. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 02:11:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > 3 is the same as 2, but is less intrusive while still accomplishing the > same goal - it doesn't mess with unrelated parts of the SC. > (If you want 3 but with a time limit, vote for 'further discussion' and > next time participate in the discussion instead of sitting around like a > lemon) Actually, proposal 3 (C) does have a time limit, except that it's expressed in a broken unit of time (time of release :). > I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it > is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3 > is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more > important than being ready" option. Option 6 is the "better rather > than sooner" option. Non sequitur - the premise is vaguely correct, but I disagree that the two conclusions follow from it. It doesn't make sense to me that readiness and usability of Debian releases are to be achieved by removing stuff that was not supposed to be removed just a while ago. There is value in removing legally harmful or borderline illegal stuff, but that's not the same. Anyway. I think I'm going to compromise and vote 6314275. The Transition Guide thing sounds like overengineering, and choices 2 and 4 undo too much, but I guess they're all better than further discussion. The rest isn't. (September? :)) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. (on -devel, not on -vote, Cc: accordingly) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
Andrew Suffield schrieb: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: >> [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] >> [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] >> [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] >> [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] >> [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] >> [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] >> [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion My abstract would be: 1, 2, 3, 5 are about releasing Sarge first, and then sort out anything unfree. 4 is reverting to what we did before the "editorial changes": release free software, but not apply DFSoftwareG to non-Software. If it was not bad then, I don't think it became bad by "ediorial changes". 6 is about waiting with sarge until we sorted out everything which was rendered unfree by the "editorial changes". Which will be a long time. Ciao, Eike PS: I'm still sure that 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 include dropping the GPL text from Debian (AKA suicide) sooner or later. I don't want to discuss this again, as it has been discussed in depth already, I just want to mention. (Has the release manager commented on this?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Analysis of the ballot options
> There are essentially two positions here, which appear to be best > represented by options 3 and 6. In summary, these positions are: > > --- > Debian is about releasing software > --- > Debian is about releasing free software > --- Surely this terse (and not exactly unbiased) summary has the same problems as the previous SC, i.e., the unclear definition of "software"? (Substitute "unclear" with "not well-agreed-upon" if it makes you happier.) > The assumption here is that our users are not best served by free > software. I question why anybody who holds that opinion would have > anything to do with Debian, or free software in general. I think that > our users are best served by having free software, and releasing with > anything less is doing them a major disservice, especially if we foist > non-free software on them for two or three years until the next > release. You speak as if it were a choice between releasing free software/data versus non-free alternatives. Of course the real problem is that in many cases there simply are no current alternatives at all (e.g., the significant amounts of GFDL documentation). This does rather muddy things up -- documentation for instance is an important component of a system for users who don't know it all already (or who haven't been using GNU/Linux for so long that they know all the magic tricks to try to work it out for themselves). Anyway, I'm basically claiming that your summary is a rather broad over-simplification (which of course happens to suit your own proposal). b. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Analysis of the ballot options
Summary: you probably want 3 or 6. On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:59:33PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > [ ] Choice 1: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1] > [ ] Choice 2: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1] > [ ] Choice 3: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1] > [ ] Choice 4: Revert to old wording of SC[needs 3:1] > [ ] Choice 5: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1] > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC[needs 1:1] > [ ] Choice 7: Further discussion Options 1-3 are essentially clones with subtle variations. 2 is the same as 1, but without the time limit. 3 is the same as 2, but is less intrusive while still accomplishing the same goal - it doesn't mess with unrelated parts of the SC. (If you want 3 but with a time limit, vote for 'further discussion' and next time participate in the discussion instead of sitting around like a lemon) It is unfortunate that these three options were not combined, but there has been something of a buckshot approach to the construction of this ballot. Option 3 is essentially the refined version of 1 and 2. Option 5 may in itself be a good idea, but it is essentially orthogonal here, and worse, it doesn't actually answer the question of "what do we do about sarge?" - it just says "carry on", which says "non-free release" if you were expecting a non-free release and "free release" if you were expecting a free release. [I would tentatively support the notion of introducing something like option 5 as a separate ballot; it seems like a valid idea. But it's probably not a good idea to write this in a hurry, and I think it would be better written in the style of the constitution]. Option 6 is the other position - that free software is what matters. There are essentially two positions here, which appear to be best represented by options 3 and 6. In summary, these positions are: --- Debian is about releasing software --- Debian is about releasing free software --- If you think that it is more important to release some software than to release free software, you should probably rank 3 first. If you think that it is more important to have free software, you should probably rank 6 first. I would point out that historically, Debian does not release before it is ready, and that's why our releases usually work so well. Option 3 is the "release before it is ready, because releasing is more important than being ready" option. Option 6 is the "better rather than sooner" option. On a side note, there has been a meme floating around that says: "There is an inherant contradiction in the SC, between the needs of free software and the needs of our users. Both options are in conflict with the SC because one ignores free software, while the other ignores our users." The assumption here is that our users are not best served by free software. I question why anybody who holds that opinion would have anything to do with Debian, or free software in general. I think that our users are best served by having free software, and releasing with anything less is doing them a major disservice, especially if we foist non-free software on them for two or three years until the next release. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
