Call for vote (was Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader)
Hi, I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution. As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1]. Of course, the voting period in the WML file will be edited by the Secretary to fit his agenda. Manoj, please note also that I added the 2 seconds mentioned in [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I do not know if you count them as valid yet. Denis [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ ] Choice 1: Recall the project leader [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion define-tag pagetitleGeneral Resolution: Recall the project leader/define-tag define-tag statusP/define-tag #use wml::debian::template title=pagetitle BARETITLE=true NOHEADER=true #use wml::debian::toc #use wml::debian::votebar h1pagetitle/h1 toc-display/ vtimeline / table class=vote tr thProposal/th tdWednesday, 20supth/sup September, 2006/td /tr tr thDiscussion Period:/th tdThursday, 21supst/sup September, 2006/td tdWednesday, 4supth/sup October, 2006/td /tr tr thVoting Period/th tdThursday, 5supth/sup October, 00:00:00 UTC, 2006/td tdThursday, 12supth/sup October, 00:00:00 UTC, 2006/td /tr /table vproposer / p Denis Barbier [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /p vseconds / ol li Clint Adams [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Julien Blache [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Marc Dequegrave;nes [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Pierre Habouzit [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Aureacute;lien Jarno [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li MJ Ray [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Martin Schulze [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Anthony Towns [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li /ol vmindiscuss / p Denis Barbier and Loiuml;c Minier, per a href=http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00024.html;\ delegation of the Debian Project Leader/a, vary the discussion and voting periods by one week. The voting period is then one week long only. /p vquorum / p With a href=vote_005_quorum.log1000 developers/a, we have: /p pre #include 'vote_005_quorum.txt' /pre #include 'vote_005_quorum.inc' vstatistics / p For this GR, as always a href=suppl_005_statsstatistics/a shall be gathered about ballots received and acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting period. Additionally, the list of a href=vote_005_voters.txtvoters/a would be made publicly available. Also, the a href=vote_005_tally.txttally sheet/a may also be viewed after to voting is done (Note that while the vote is in progress it is a dummy tally sheet). /p vmajorityreq / p All the amendments need simple majority /p #include 'vote_005_majority.inc' voutcome / h3The outcome/h3 #include 'vote_005_results.inc' hrline address a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Manoj Srivastava/a /address signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for vote (was Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader)
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: I am hereby calling for a vote on the recall resolution. As will be confirmed by Loic Minier in a separate mail, we agreed upon shortening the discussion and voting periods to one week, per delegation of the Debian Project Leader[1]. I confirm the short voting period. (This is also mentionned in the proposed WML pages for the website.) -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see the need for more discussion. As per [EMAIL PROTECTED] on -project, the minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a vote at any time. As per that message, you and Loic can also vary the voting period if you think that's a useful thing to do. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Hi, On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: As per [EMAIL PROTECTED] on -project, the minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a vote at any time. As per that message, you and Loic can also vary the voting period if you think that's a useful thing to do. I wish the vote starts as soon as possible. I am fine with either one ballot or separates ballots. Denis, do you have a preference in the number of ballots? Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: Hi, On Tue, Oct 03, 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: As per [EMAIL PROTECTED] on -project, the minimum discussion period is varied to one week, so you can call for a vote at any time. As per that message, you and Loic can also vary the voting period if you think that's a useful thing to do. I wish the vote starts as soon as possible. I am fine with either one ballot or separates ballots. Denis, do you have a preference in the number of ballots? It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall vote; anyway we are now stalled by Josselin's proposal, AFAICT. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 12:38:45AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions. Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see the need for more discussion. Manoj, I hope that this does not cause trouble on your agenda, otherwise please disregard this message. Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. manoj -- Love is the salt of life; a higher taste It gives to pleasure, and then makes it last. -- Buckingham Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. Err, I should have stated that as long as the minimum discussion period is over. Denis's proposal awas seconded around 21 Sep 2006, so we are still in minimum discussion for that. Sorry about that. There have been so many of these proposals floating around I am beginning to lose track. manoj -- Some marriages are made in heaven -- but so are thunder and lightning. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:35:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:14:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:44:36 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Denis, if this issue gets voted before the clarification of the firmware stuff, i would take this extremely bad. Please wait your turn, and favour issues which are technically important above bass politcking. This is wrong. Denis, do feel free to call for a vote as soon as you think there has been enough discussion. There is no need for any proposal to wait upon any other proposal. If you want, we can start vote on this and any other pending proposal this weekend. Err, I should have stated that as long as the minimum discussion period is over. Denis's proposal awas seconded around 21 Sep 2006, so we are still in minimum discussion for that. Absolutely, this is why I asked Anthony if he was willing to shorten the disussion/vote period, as allowed by the Constitution. Anyway I will prepare the requested documents just in case. Sorry about that. There have been so many of these proposals floating around I am beginning to lose track. My bad, I should have mentioned this fact in my previous mail. Thanks for your time. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions. Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see the need for more discussion. Manoj, I hope that this does not cause trouble on your agenda, otherwise please disregard this message. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:38:45 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:51:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [...] But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions. Of course this is your decision, but for the record I would be glad if you make use of your Super Powers so that we can vote soon, I do not see the need for more discussion. Manoj, I hope that this does not cause trouble on your agenda, otherwise please disregard this message. Err, as the proposer of the GR, you have the super powers to ask for the vote to begin. If I understand you correctly that you want the votes to start, you need to ask for the discussion to end, say what you think the ballot should look like, and optionally provide the wml that you want put up on vote.d.o And sign the message, of course. manoj -- 667: The neighbor of the beast. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Martin Schulze wrote: Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said, if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done against Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's not allowed in the constitution. Umh? Why would Steve be disposed as well? I'm missing a crucial bit here, I guess. Oh, you were talking about Sledge and not about vorlon I guess, now it makes sense. Umm, does it? I don't read the Constitution as saying that existing delegations expire automatically when the Project Leader is changed. I also don't remember having ever seen a newly elected DPL bother with renewing delegations. To my understanding, once made, they remain in effect until explicitly withdrawn. However I don't remember whether the 2IC post was actually a formal delegation, and am too lazy to check. In fact, as the 2IC doesn't seem to have any specific power or responsibility, it could be disputed that Steve was delegated anything. Gerardo
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On 9/26/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: I don't understand how this proposal answers the question. One answer implied by your proposal: Dunc-tank is grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it is a debian project. No. Again, I'm somewhat unsure what you mean. This time, I am going to guess you mean No, that implication is not the meaning that [Denis] intended. Do you remember the discussions about the Debian Core Consortium last year? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/07/msg00202.html Debian developers were concerned about trademark issues, and this consortium has been renamed into DCC Alliance. This does not mean that Debian was part of the DCC Alliance. This does not seem comparable. Talking about concerns is not the same thing as passing a GR to restructure the project in response to those concerns: If we do pass a GR, the results would say something about our thoughts on the underlying issue, its relevance to the project, and our thoughts on related issues. If this was the only answer implied by your proposal, I might agree that your proposal makes confusion vanish. But, it's one of many contradictory implied answers. Ok, let me clarify. Is dunc-tank perceived as an independant project when it is launched by the Debian Project Leader, and this project asks people to give money to help release Etch in time? In my opinion no, people believe that they give money to a Debian project whereas dunc-tank is not. If this is your belief, it seems to me that you are reinforcing the particular implication I suggested originally. Since my point is that your proposal increases confusion, I'll take this opportunity to point out another implication of your proposal: This proposal implies that the beliefs of uninformed outsiders take precedence over decisions made by anyone within Debian. Now, I'm not saying that everyone is going to take this meaning from your proposal. I am, however, saying that the number of people who believe this implication will be at least as large as the number of people believe that they give money to a Debian project whereas dunc-tank is not. That said, if there is fraud involved -- if people are taking money under false pretenses -- that is a criminal matter, and should be treated as such. We should not be waiting on a GR, if that were really the case. This is why I told that this recall procedure will make this confusion vanish. This recall procedure might make your own confusion vanish. It increases my confusion. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:02:19PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Towns [wrote]: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. ... But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. I don't understand how this proposal answers the question. One answer implied by your proposal: Dunc-tank is grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it is a debian project. No. Do you remember the discussions about the Debian Core Consortium last year? http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/07/msg00202.html Debian developers were concerned about trademark issues, and this consortium has been renamed into DCC Alliance. This does not mean that Debian was part of the DCC Alliance. If this was the only answer implied by your proposal, I might agree that your proposal makes confusion vanish. But, it's one of many contradictory implied answers. Ok, let me clarify. Is dunc-tank perceived as an independant project when it is launched by the Debian Project Leader, and this project asks people to give money to help release Etch in time? In my opinion no, people believe that they give money to a Debian project whereas dunc-tank is not. This is why I told that this recall procedure will make this confusion vanish. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the rest of life. I spend a fair bit of effort trying to break down those barriers in my own life. That direction would be the exact *opposite* direction from what I think is healthy and most productive for me, and my position on issues of this sort is far from unique at least among people who work for universities (those being the people to whom I've talked the most about this). On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:07:38PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: I completely agree, Russ. And I work for a manufacturing company. How would Debian benefit if I can no longer take the Bacula packages that I'm building for my employer anyway, and upload them to Debian? I certainly am not willing to maintain them twice, and before we decided to use Bacula at work, the Bacula packages in Debian were in such a mess that they had been removed from testing for months. This is a small example of the benefit Debian derives from people working on Debian at their job. Once I accepted payment to help set up an equestrian course. My employer in this endeavor had no idea that I would be using this funding in part to help keep myself clothed, fed, and sheltered while I worked on Debian in my spare time. Now would it be a factual statement if I said that the crazy horse people paid me to waste time replying to mailing list silliness? If you really think that working on Bacula or choosing to publish DWN during work hours is the same thing as being tasked to do specific ftpmaster work, I'm not surprised that you're missing the point. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Martin Schulze wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said, if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done against Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's not allowed in the constitution. Umh? Why would Steve be disposed as well? I'm missing a crucial bit here, I guess. Oh, you were talking about Sledge and not about vorlon I guess, now it makes sense. Regards, Joey -- Life is a lot easier when you have someone to share it with. -- Sean Perry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le lun 25 septembre 2006 09:42, Martin Schulze a écrit : Martin Schulze wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said, if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done against Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's not allowed in the constitution. Umh? Why would Steve be disposed as well? I'm missing a crucial bit here, I guess. Oh, you were talking about Sledge and not about vorlon I guess, now it makes sense. oh yes, Steve McIntyre, not Langasek. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp8K15ejPUFW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On 9/20/06, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Towns [wrote]: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. ... But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. I don't understand how this proposal answers the question. One answer implied by your proposal: Dunc-tank is grounds for removing Debian's leader, that means it is a debian project. If this was the only answer implied by your proposal, I might agree that your proposal makes confusion vanish. But, it's one of many contradictory implied answers. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote: The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of the project. Should I be put into a situation where I don't feel like I can do that without conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. Debian has to look at least one move ahead. Once conflicts of interest are accepted with an assumption that honest people will recuse themselves, the dynamics inevitably lead to something like the US Congress. I don't think I've seen any project with more than a handful of people that doesn't have a potential for conflicts of interest. Debian has certainly had that potential for many, many years already, and has been dealing with that for all these years. Non-honest people will take roles that they would not otherwise. And if you doubt the existence of black hat programmers, take a look at my spam folder some day. We haven't seemed to have serious problems with that so far, despite having many Debian developers who even work for companies with interests in having Debian work in particular ways that may not be best for other users of Debian. People work say up-front when they're not impartial, we work out reasonable solutions or compromises, and we get on with the business of making a high-quality operating system. This is not some scary, complex concept fraught with danger. Potential conflicts of interest arise in life all the time. They're nearly unavoidable, a natural consequence of having more than one interest and more than one affiliation in one's life. People deal with them routinely, often without needing to give them a second thought. Every time you see someone say I really want this feature but maybe it doesn't fit the bigger picture or I want to make this work in Debian; what do I need to do so that it doesn't break other things I don't personally care about, you're seeing someone deal with a conflict of interest. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006, Clint Adams wrote: If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of people who can revert this, and roughly a thousand who can NMU the relevant perl packages in the meantime. lintian is a similar situation. If Company Z bribes you to not make QA uploads, no one will notice. Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. You list risks of bribes of various people working on Debian. How did this change with dunc tank? Are you claiming that dunc tank is a mean to disguise bribes? I fail to see why the problems you describe were not problems two months or two years ago. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of telling one's employer no? If so, remember that you can resolve a conflict of interest by refusing *either* party; if I can't resolve the This is quite an easy statement to make; it's actually far harder to do in real life if/when the need arises, you know. non-Debian issue creating the conflict of interest, I would resign the Debian position. This is a distinction that doesn't interfere with Resigning the from the Debian position may very well get you nothing else but a pink slip from your employer. resolving the issue. (Not to mention that one's employer is far from the only party in one's life that one may not be able to easily say no to.) JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
* Martin Schulze: It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to. But this is hardly a new thing. The difference is that this time, there is a debate. Debian developers are currently not required to disclose to the project (or the public) how they make money through the privileges granted to them to the project. The current situation is roughly this: Debian exclusively assigns some roles to a few developers (either through delegation, or by other means). In some cases, it turns out that in this role, you can carry out tasks that are commercially significant to entities outside Debian, and you get paid for both your expertise and your privileges granted to you by the project. In this case, the decision who gets assigned such roles by the project certainly has economic aspects, and to me it seems that this suffers from the same risks as paying developers directly. Unfortunately, it's difficult to debate about this publicly because we can't name any specifics. NB: Ordinary package maintenance tasks are not affected by this because we have well-established conflict resolution procedures and ways to work around inactive maintainers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
* Steve Langasek: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: just let me rephrase it then. 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution You know, this is true only in the most hypothetical sense. Neither Colin, nor Andi nor I, nor any of the current release assistants, were ever the subject of a formal delegation by the DPL, How would you know? The Consitution does not require that the DPL makes delegations public. Strictly speaking, even the delegate doesn't need to know aboutit. For instance, Branden has made Andi a formal delegate AFAIK, but I can't find any public documentation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit : Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj. There's some difference between not liking aj and thinking aj is hurting the project to the point he should be recalled. In fact, you can do the second without the first -- and you can do the first without the second. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
[1/3] Russ Allbery wrote at some point: including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from my employer. Agreed. The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As Agreed. someone offer me a bargain like the above, I would refuse it. Should the Debian project as a whole not trust me to act ethically, it shouldn't trust me with that sort of position. Agreed. Therefore, since we don't trust AJ with such a position, we are attempting to recall him. Debian). These sorts of ethical requirements are simply not that uncommon, and the vast majority of people negotiate them without any major difficulty. I will note that several other organizations have codes of ethics, codes of business conduct, and other formal structures to attempt to mitigate such problems. I had never feared that Debian would need anything like that, but the current state of discussions makes me doubt. The best thing the project can do to help with this is to work to avoid small points of failure and to put more people in a position to help should a conflict arise. We *have* had a problem with this, and I *do* think it's a problem. Ironically, release management is one of the areas where this is *less* of a problem I don't see how that's ironic. And, rather more to the point, are you comfortable poking this far into other people's motivations and conduct in their personal lives to the extent that you would try to analyze this sort of thing for any delegate and even non-delegated positions like RM? I find that unnecessary and Firstly, this whole delegated/non-delegated doublespeak is irrelevant. Everyone on http://www.debian.org/intro/organization (correcting for those people who should not be on there but are, and those people who should be on there but are not), irrespective of whether they believe themselves to be delegated, is beholden to the Project, and not the other way around. Secondly, I have not bothered to poke into the motivations and conduct of the release managers in the dunc-tank initiative, as (other than politicking in favor of this travesty) I consider it largely unimportant and largely irrelevant. rather intrusive. Surely, what we owe each other is ethical behavior. What arrangements we make in our personal lives to ensure that we can behave ethically are our own business. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:11:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I don't think I've seen any project with more than a handful of people that doesn't have a potential for conflicts of interest. Debian has certainly had that potential for many, many years already, and has been dealing with that for all these years. Imperfectly if not poorly. We haven't seemed to have serious problems with that so far, despite Either you and I have access to different information about this, or we disagree upon what constitutes a serious problem. On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:26:17AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: You list risks of bribes of various people working on Debian. How did this change with dunc tank? Are you claiming that dunc tank is a mean to disguise bribes? I'm not sure that the risk of bribery is changed one bit by dunc-tank's existence. I fail to see why the problems you describe were not problems two months or two years ago. The conflict-of-interest problems have been problems two months and two years ago. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of telling one's employer no? If so, remember that you can resolve a conflict of interest by refusing *either* party; if I can't resolve the This is quite an easy statement to make; it's actually far harder to do in real life if/when the need arises, you know. non-Debian issue creating the conflict of interest, I would resign the Debian position. This is a distinction that doesn't interfere with Resigning the from the Debian position may very well get you nothing else but a pink slip from your employer. It sounds like you're postulating an employer who wants a Debian developer to do something unethical and will fire them if they don't. Since we're now talking about employers who would be doing things that border on the illegal, couldn't we agree that this isn't likely to be a common problem (to say the least)? I feel like this thread is missing the forest for the poison oak. This sort of problem with that serious of consequences is so rare that I can't think of a single example, whereas I can think of hundreds of companies that have gladly donated portions of their employees' time to help innumerable free software projects without any unpleasant strings attached, or at most requiring some minor negotiation of priorities. Furthermore, Debian has been dealing with such employers for years; we're now no longer talking about the original topic of the thread and now talking about whether the employment relationships of at *least* dozens of Debian developers are too dangerous to be permitted near anything important. I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the rest of life. I spend a fair bit of effort trying to break down those barriers in my own life. That direction would be the exact *opposite* direction from what I think is healthy and most productive for me, and my position on issues of this sort is far from unique at least among people who work for universities (those being the people to whom I've talked the most about this). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously against some developers' opinions? If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's opinion, then, frankly, the DPL cannot possibly make any decision, ever. I disagree. I believe it would usually be possible to find ways upon which all developers agree, even if that way is sometimes the vote system instead of an executive decision by the DPL. Fortunately, the DPL is empowered by the constitution to Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. (5.1.4). The ability to make decisions no-one else can does not give the DPL absolute power. Even when making such a decision, the DPL should follow the procedure given (5.3), which includes attempt to make decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers. I don't feel that has happened, in a few incidents now. [...] Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored. Unfortunately, on this subject, which suggestions are considered reasonable diverges hugely depending whom you ask. I agree consensus would be preferred, but a compromise isn't always preferable, because you would not easily arrive at some of the more interesting decisions that a DPL with a mission could arrive at. [...] Some suggestions may need to be rejected and I have no problem with that idea - and in some cases, it's necessary to reject some to build a good consensus. My complaint above is that some valid suggestions seemed to be totally *ignored* - much like the point above... I'd say Anthony is trying. Very. Let him try us no longer! Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. FTAOD, if the (imho) idiotic recall vote succeeds then there will be no need for anyone else to worry about my position... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
martin == martin f krafft martin writes: martin What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch, martin please ffs. Seconded. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 02:17:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple question of ethics. The conflict could come from any number of sources, including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from my employer. The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of the project. Should I be put into a situation where I don't feel like I can do that without conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. Should someone offer me a bargain like the above, I would refuse it. Should the Debian project as a whole not trust me to act ethically, it shouldn't trust me with that sort of position. Indeed, the only solid defense against such a conflict of interest is the ethics of the person holding the privileged position. If the premise is that the release managers are willing to sell their souls and the release schedule for personal enrichment, I don't see how any amount of oversight can effectively prevent that. I'm pretty sure that a company looking to sabotage the release process isn't going to feel out the idea on debian-private first. The other option is to eliminate privileged roles. In this case, I think that amounts to eliminating stable releases; I don't think Debian is capable of pulling off a stable release without a focal point in the form of a release team, and while I think sharing the burdens with a larger release team has worked well, I don't think you want to make all decisions by committee... Now, dunc-tank hasn't asked me to compromise myself as an RM; releasing etch this year is already a stated goal of mine, dunc-tank merely seeks to facilitate this goal, and it's understood that this relationship isn't going to bring with it any obligation to cut corners, make particular package decisions that favor the donors, or even to release on schedule if the RMs determine that this is not the correct technical decision at the time. So as far as conflicts of interest are concerned, I don't see one here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:54:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I think everyone understands where I stand now, so I'll stop posting about this, but my agenda in this is to ask people not to be so worried about employment conflicts as to force strict barriers between Debian and the rest of life. I spend a fair bit of effort trying to break down those barriers in my own life. That direction would be the exact *opposite* direction from what I think is healthy and most productive for me, and my position on issues of this sort is far from unique at least among people who work for universities (those being the people to whom I've talked the most about this). I completely agree, Russ. And I work for a manufacturing company. How would Debian benefit if I can no longer take the Bacula packages that I'm building for my employer anyway, and upload them to Debian? I certainly am not willing to maintain them twice, and before we decided to use Bacula at work, the Bacula packages in Debian were in such a mess that they had been removed from testing for months. This is a small example of the benefit Debian derives from people working on Debian at their job. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le ven 22 septembre 2006 04:20, Steve Langasek a écrit : that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming from a delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an organisation. It's just not compatible. Um, terminology disconnect here; the DPL isn't a delegate, the DPL is the DPL. And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate capacity. Like said on IRC yesterday, what I meant is a delegate with decision powers in debian + the DPL (who is technically not a delegate). So there is quite few, only the DPL, his asssistant, and maybe the Secretary. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpQF84ho29ns.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs, for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to officially request funding? NO. How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously against some developers' opinions? Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need of any DPL special power. Yes, instead of working as DPL to find a compromise, he yet again seeks to direct debian funding away from debian's control and its established partners. Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored. What does he get for trying his best to gather more support for Debian? A let's fire the DPL GR. If this DPL's best does not include revising his proposals or seeking compromise, then it's time for a new DPL. This will get support for more than the Dunk Tank reason. [...] Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article? I agree, the article inaccuracies are not a major reason to support the recall, but it is likely to be the first of many if the DPL is heading a debian proposal which has been taken outside the project. I'm deeply disappointed by the french cabal supporting this DPL bashing. Please do feel responsible for the fate of the project after such a stupid vote. When I asked for likely seconds for a recall a while ago (now made obsolete by this proposal), I was surprised by the number of French-sounding supporters. I myself am probably a francophile. I wonder, is there something about this brash DPL which is particularly un-French? One for the sociologists/anthropologists, perhaps? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue? As I stated elsewhere (and was ignored by AJ at least once), I am not particularly troubled by paying the RMs, but - as I understand it - the dunc-tank model is flawed. I'd welcome a pragmatic attempt to find a compromise, but I expect standing-aside is the most we can get from some developers with irreconcilable objections to the concept. Nevertheless, the DPL procedures have been totally screwed-up again, so I would still support recalling AJ. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
I suppose the DPL has the authority to dismiss a release manager, but I don't think that makes it a delegated position after the fact. And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate capacity. Oh my. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:02:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs, for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to officially request funding? NO. How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously against some developers' opinions? If the DPL can't take decisions that are against some developer's opinion, then, frankly, the DPL cannot possibly make any decision, ever. Fortunately, the DPL is empowered by the constitution to Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. (5.1.4). Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need of any DPL special power. Yes, instead of working as DPL to find a compromise, he yet again seeks to direct debian funding away from debian's control and its established partners. Even IMO-reasonable suggestions, such as goal-based rather than time-based payments, seemed to be ignored. Unfortunately, on this subject, which suggestions are considered reasonable diverges hugely depending whom you ask. I agree consensus would be preferred, but a compromise isn't always preferable, because you would not easily arrive at some of the more interesting decisions that a DPL with a mission could arrive at. I appload Anthony for experimenting with various ways, some bolder than others, to improve Debian and increase momentum. I realize some of those experiments will fail, but I strongly believe we have enough checks and balances, and as a project also resilience, for this DPL term to have a net positive effect on Debian. As Dutch saying goes, if you never shoot, you'll always miss. That said, though, I dare say our current DPL *is* seeking compromise, and is not acting this bold. He could have simply decided to proceed within Debian. If this DPL's best does not include revising his proposals or seeking compromise, then it's time for a new DPL. This will get support for more than the Dunk Tank reason. [EMAIL PROTECTED] in debian-private 2006-08 is IMHO a pretty decent attempt at listening carefully to comments raised, and consequently revising a proposal to seek compromise. I'd say Anthony is trying. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Hello Pierre, 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution 2. The DPL is deeply in a structure that has supposedly nothing to do with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of Debian approval. 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's. As you've noted yourself, that structure has supposedly nothing to do with Debian. So it's especially independant from aj being DPL or the people to be funded being the RMs. Dunc-tank could also fund all new maintainers with $5 if they think thats reasonable and if they find sponsors to donate this money. Or buy dilbert comics for all DDs. Or sponsor beer. There is no need to have AJs DPL-hat nominate someone to fund him via dunc-tank. The principle is simple: - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money - dunc-tank tries to give money to people so it yields this impression (to get more money) If dunc-tank is funding people who really don't deserve it, you're welcome to say so. Especially when AJ is abusing his DPL powers to nominate some RMs for whatever reason to make it look more legitimate to waste money donated to dunc-tank by someone. While it might look helpful if neither AJ nor Steve would be on the dunc-tank board - I certainly do prefer people deeply involved with the project there - I doubt it will make any of you more reasonable. Because it apparently is not at all what you are concerned about. And probably you'll just claim that while not being officially on the board, they still have a serious amount of influence. All you are actually cared about is that some people might get some money for their work, and others might be annoyed by not getting similar support. But IMHO this is already the reality right now. Some people ARE already getting money for their work on Debian. It's just not by dunc-tank. best regards, Erich Schubert -- erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org)--GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C(o_ The best things in life are free: Friendship and Love.//\ Wer keine Zeit mehr mit echten Freunden verbringt, der wird bald V_/_ sein Gleichgewicht verlieren. --- Michael Levine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And if you're really claiming that no one who holds any delegated position in Debian should be allowed to be involved in any organization that funds Debian developers... I quite frankly find that to be an insane position to hold. I can only imagine it decreasing the number of people willing to serve Debian in a delegate capacity. Oh my. I agree with the sentiment of the text quoted above; I think that position would be very unrealistic. Many of us use Debian as part of our jobs; that's the reason why we got involved in Debian in the first place. Stanford pays me in part to be a Debian developer because Stanford cares about having a high quality Debian distribution to deploy on its infrastructure servers and specifically about having high-quality Kerberos and AFS packages. I bet there are dozens, probably hundreds, of other system administrators here who are in a similar position, where their job is not entirely Debian by any stretch but where they have official blessing to do some work on Debian on their employer's time and hence are being funded to be Debian developers. Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough people willing to do critical central work that one can rule out everyone who has such an agreement with their employer. In fact, having such an agreement with one's employer is even *more* important for a delegated position that involves a larger time committment. Otherwise, the only people you could get to take on time-intensive delegated positions are people who either have very flexible working conditions or who have sufficient personal funds to not have to work a full-time job. It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act in the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats, and to be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a variety of different positions involved in critical decisions. This isn't exactly a new problem, though, and *many* free software projects have already dealt with issues like this in a reasonable way. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough No, everyone with special privileges or access is magically different. That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth. people willing to do critical central work that one can rule out everyone Aren't there? position that involves a larger time committment. Otherwise, the only people you could get to take on time-intensive delegated positions are people who either have very flexible working conditions or who have sufficient personal funds to not have to work a full-time job. Sounds like you're describing a volunteer organization. It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act in the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats, and to be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a variety of different positions involved in critical decisions. This isn't exactly a new problem, though, and *many* free software projects have already dealt with issues like this in a reasonable way. As far as I can tell, the developer body is not united in that expectation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote: The principle is simple: - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic. -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:05:39AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Again, the question is: is this organisation sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. In my opinion, the answer is obviously no, meaning that this quarantine will not work and as a result may badly harm the project. By recalling the Project Leader, we ensure that there is no confusion between both projects, give the Dunc project a better chance of success, and preserve Debian in case of failure. Uhm, did you ask any of the dunc-tank people whether they would like to carry on after your GR passed? I don't see that as a given. Which would imply that it is strongly associated to the project leader which was the reason why Denis proposed this general resolution. Err... Did I just misunderstand you? Regards, Joey -- This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Delegates aren't somehow magically different, and there aren't enough No, everyone with special privileges or access is magically different. That includes DSA, ftpmaster, the release team, and so forth. I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done anything with that access yet due to lack of time? Otherwise, the only people you could get to take on time-intensive delegated positions are people who either have very flexible working conditions or who have sufficient personal funds to not have to work a full-time job. Sounds like you're describing a volunteer organization. I think we're not using the same definition of volunteer. More to the point, this pattern, however you would care to describe it, is extremely common among free software projects and, for that matter, many other types of organizations that do things for the common good. Many corporations will sponsor (i.e., fund) employee activities for such organizations as Habitat for Humanity, for instance. I don't consider this to be in any way a bad thing. I think it's *way* too restrictive to require that no employer be involved in any way. One does have to take care with conflicts of interest, but it's possible to act responsibily with respect to conflicts of interest without segregating one's life to *that* degree. Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not* segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work time. I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not* have to do that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult conflicts of interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on what I feel needs to get done without having to worry about who owns that work, and I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with that *personal* decision. It is absolutely worthwhile to expect people in such positions to act in the best interests of Debian, to be aware of their different hats, and to be cautious about having a variety of people coming from a variety of different positions involved in critical decisions. This isn't exactly a new problem, though, and *many* free software projects have already dealt with issues like this in a reasonable way. As far as I can tell, the developer body is not united in that expectation. I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is large enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Sep 22, 2006, Erich Schubert wrote: The principle is simple: - if people think dunc-tank is a good thing, they'll get money Hahaha oh wow. Now I understand why people are so enthusiastic. *heh*. I expect Erich's they referred to dunc-tank not people. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
John Goerzen wrote: * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing. I don't recall this coming with strings such as can't be spent on programmer time. So there is even precedent for the project doing this sort of thing. Maybe it wasn't known to you but this money wasn't used to pay a particular developer but to let some developers travel to a conference. So it's a totally different issue. Regards, Joey -- This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Matthew R. Dempsky wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. What's so scandalous about the DPL encouraging a timely release? It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to. Regards, Joey -- This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Pierre Habouzit wrote: Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit : On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said, if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done against Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's not allowed in the constitution. Umh? Why would Steve be disposed as well? I'm missing a crucial bit here, I guess. Regards, Joey -- This is GNU/Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done anything with that access yet due to lack of time? If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of people who can revert this, and roughly a thousand who can NMU the relevant perl packages in the meantime. lintian is a similar situation. If Company Z bribes you to not make QA uploads, no one will notice. Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? More to the point, this pattern, however you would care to describe it, is extremely common among free software projects and, for that matter, many other types of organizations that do things for the common good. Many corporations will sponsor (i.e., fund) employee activities for such organizations as Habitat for Humanity, for instance. I don't consider this to be in any way a bad thing. I think it's *way* too restrictive to require that no employer be involved in any way. One does have to take care with conflicts of interest, but it's possible to act responsibily with respect to conflicts of interest without segregating one's life to *that* degree. If my employer encourages me to spend an hour a week working on Debian, I think that's fine. If my employer demands that I spend one hour per week trying to get HotJava through NEW, I will either refuse or resign myself to be an unscrupulous hypocrite. Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not* segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work time. I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not* have to do that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult conflicts of interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on what I feel needs to get done without having to worry about who owns that work, and I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with that *personal* decision. Then I'm not sure of what I might be saying that applies to you. I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is large enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything. Perhaps this is nostalgic hagiography, but we used to be united in producing a quality OS. I suspect that I've reached Matthew Wilcox's 3-post-per-day limit now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
also sprach Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.23.2156 +0200]: Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? Fortunately, nobody is talking about employing release managers. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems if one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le samedi 23 septembre 2006 à 22:03 +0200, martin f krafft a écrit : Fortunately, nobody is talking about employing release managers. Oh yes, we are. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is the DPL empowered to take that decision when it is so obviously against some developers' opinions? Are you seriously saying that a minority of developers have a vote power over the actions of the DPL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple question of ethics. The conflict could come from any number of sources, including ones that aren't even monetary, and the risk is present whether I'm being paid to work on Debian or not since it doesn't have to come from my employer. The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of the project. Should I be put into a situation where I don't feel like I can do that without conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. Should someone offer me a bargain like the above, I would refuse it. Should the Debian project as a whole not trust me to act ethically, it shouldn't trust me with that sort of position. I don't think that this is so dire of a peril that we should throw up our hands, decide no one can be trusted to behave ethically in such a situation, and bar any employer support of any position we think is important (and that line is hard to draw and isn't just delegates, since the real risk is more subtle than simple vandalism of the type that you described and the gcc maintainers, kernel maintainers, d-i developers, libc maintainers, and so forth all also have important, central roles in Debian). These sorts of ethical requirements are simply not that uncommon, and the vast majority of people negotiate them without any major difficulty. The best thing the project can do to help with this is to work to avoid small points of failure and to put more people in a position to help should a conflict arise. We *have* had a problem with this, and I *do* think it's a problem. Ironically, release management is one of the areas where this is *less* of a problem If my employer encourages me to spend an hour a week working on Debian, I think that's fine. If my employer demands that I spend one hour per week trying to get HotJava through NEW, I will either refuse or resign myself to be an unscrupulous hypocrite. Exactly. And I expect any ftp-master would do the same thing, and that anyone who wouldn't make that decision shouldn't become an ftp-master. And as long as they held that ethical position, it wouldn't matter whether their employer encouraged them to spend an hour a week working on the NEW queue (thus making them funded to work on Debian). Furthermore, to address this from a more personal level, I *will not* segregate my life to that degree. I find it deeply unpleasant to do so and have no particular desire to be involved in a project that would require me to make sharp distinctions between work time and not-work time. I carefully chose my employer precisely so that I would *not* have to do that. I chose an employer that would not create difficult conflicts of interest, I have structured my life so that I can work on what I feel needs to get done without having to worry about who owns that work, and I would deeply resent someone trying to interfere with that *personal* decision. Then I'm not sure of what I might be saying that applies to you. Basically, I'm trying to make the argument that other people are just as capable of doing this as I am, and that it's possible to negotiate these waters without creating conflicts of interest. And that doing so is very common in projects of this kind. I don't consider that particularly relevant. The developer body is large enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything. Perhaps this is nostalgic hagiography, but we used to be united in producing a quality OS. *heh*. Touché, and a fair point. I probably should have instead said that the developer project is large enough that it's unlikely to be united in anything other than the sorts of general goals without which they wouldn't bother to be a Debian Developer at all. I suspect that I've reached Matthew Wilcox's 3-post-per-day limit now. I managed to teach lintian's dependency handling how to understand that a|b implies a|b|c, so I'm giving myself a (small) allowance of time to respond to d-v. But now I need to go fix serious bugs in gnubg. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple No it isn't the same. The relation between your employer and you and between the other distribution and you is quite different. This difference should be pretty clear. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
This one time, at band camp, Clint Adams said: I just don't agree with this. What bright line is drawn around those particular jobs that makes them special? I have special access to the Perl repository on Alioth as a member of the pkg-perl team; am I magically different? Or am I magically different because I have commit access to the lintian repository? Or am a member of the QA team but haven't done anything with that access yet due to lack of time? If Company X bribes you to break libstat-lsmode-perl, there are roughly a thousand people that can upload a fix. If Company Y bribes you to remove all the files from pkg-perl's svn repo, there are dozens of people who can revert this, and roughly a thousand who can NMU the relevant perl packages in the meantime. lintian is a similar situation. If Company Z bribes you to not make QA uploads, no one will notice. Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Of course we can. Just fix all the RC bugs, make sure testing is fully installable and library transitions are complete, ensure that the quality level is where it should be and that we've reached all of our release blocker goals. Then ask the people who actually do the grunt work of a new release (ftp masters, cd image team, etc) to go to work removing the last few packages that don't play nice and then roll out the release. I say this lightly, as if it's not hard work, but it's not magic stuff here. It's not a role account that is special because it has access to special privileges or knowledge. It's a job about doing a lot of cleanup because we as maintainers can't be bothered to make sure our little playgrounds interoperate with the rest of the distribution until someone pokes us with a stick. None of this is meant to slight you guys doing release work, by the way. I think you guys do a lot of hard work and do it well. It must be nice to be accused of being unethical enough to subvert a release in exchange for substandard wages. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Julien BLACHE [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, if you become the release manager, and your employer makes your compensation contingent on Debian not releasing before February of 2010, no one can NMU the release. Theoretically, we could replace you, but we cannot fix the problem directly. Would you not agree that this affects the risk assessment? If I became the release manager and some other distribution offered me $50,000 if Debian doesn't release before February of 2010, the situation is the same. What you're talking about here, in my opinion, is a simple No it isn't the same. The relation between your employer and you and between the other distribution and you is quite different. This difference should be pretty clear. Well, apparently I'm dumb, so you're going to have to spell it out for me. What's the difference between my employer trying to get me to do something unethical that violates an agreement with Debian or someone else trying to get me to do the same? Are you focusing on the increased difficulty of telling one's employer no? If so, remember that you can resolve a conflict of interest by refusing *either* party; if I can't resolve the non-Debian issue creating the conflict of interest, I would resign the Debian position. This is a distinction that doesn't interfere with resolving the issue. (Not to mention that one's employer is far from the only party in one's life that one may not be able to easily say no to.) And, rather more to the point, are you comfortable poking this far into other people's motivations and conduct in their personal lives to the extent that you would try to analyze this sort of thing for any delegate and even non-delegated positions like RM? I find that unnecessary and rather intrusive. Surely, what we owe each other is ethical behavior. What arrangements we make in our personal lives to ensure that we can behave ethically are our own business. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.23.2110 +0200]: It's not about a timely release, it's about Debian directly or indirectly paying *some* developers for the work they signed up to. No, it's about a timely release and enabling two people of core importance to dedicate even more of their time, using limited funds in a well-defined manner. It's about an experiment to see whether it has the potential break our track record of continuously missing our deadlines. And quite obviously, there's a lot of personal, emotional stuff involved on the side of the opponents. Are you jealous that you're not getting any money this time? Are you fearing that you may never get any money? I'm not jealous. I'm totally disappointed. I'll have to reorder the priorities in my life. I'm sure I get money if I want to. I just have to drop some Debian work to be able to work on other issues - which I have often declined in the past. This thing shows me that releasing is important and that what I've done is not. Fine. Then I shall not do it anymore, I guess. In your essay you ask: Why should those, who have to make money in other areas in order to live at all, continue to work voluntarily? -- I've tried to answer that in my recent blog post: because they believe in the project they're working on, and they're ready to look forward with everyone else, not peek sideways to see what the others are doing or whether they're better off. I have some problems believing in the project... I now also see it drowning. In the past I have always tried to demonstrate stability and confidence in Debian and I know that my steady work has been a reason for some developers not to take a leave. I can't do that anymore. Regards, Joey -- Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Saturday 23 September 2006 14:17, Russ Allbery wrote: The solution to this sort of situation is, again, a matter of ethics. As a Debian Developer, I agreed to be part of this project. To me, that carries an ethical obligation to make decisions for the general good of the project. Should I be put into a situation where I don't feel like I can do that without conflicts of interest, I would recuse myself. Debian has to look at least one move ahead. Once conflicts of interest are accepted with an assumption that honest people will recuse themselves, the dynamics inevitably lead to something like the US Congress. Non-honest people will take roles that they would not otherwise. And if you doubt the existence of black hat programmers, take a look at my spam folder some day. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 23:43 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit : Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj. There's some difference between not liking aj and thinking aj is hurting the project to the point he should be recalled. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
While the Constitution, as I read it, gives the developers the power to recall the DPL even without reason if they wish, my very humble opinion is that it should be done *only* when the DPL is guilty of something *very* bad. Please explain why that would be the case. If you feel that the DPL shouldn't participate to Dunc-tank, why not just ask him to withdraw his participation? Unless you feel that setting up that project was a betrayal or an attempt to subvert Debian. Or you were just waiting for an excuse to try and recall him. (Or you think the real purpose of Dunc-tank is to hire young female stage workers to entertain the DPL in Debian's oval room -- sorry, couldn't resist ;-) Gerardo
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:15:06AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: So now that we're in crazy-as-batshit land, who do you want to bring up on charges next? I suggest an inquisition. Nobody ever expects that. This has been coming over the last year, the signs where there, you just failed to see them. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 00:15 +0100, Stephen Gran a écrit : So, just to be clear, you want to punish a Debian developer for their activities outside of Debian? Have you only *read* the rationale? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote: § 5.3. Procedure The Project Leader should attempt to make decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers. The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external structure has been launched. So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs, for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to officially request funding? NO. Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat, make a private initiative which is directed towards helping Debian, without the need of any DPL special power. What does he get for trying his best to gather more support for Debian? A let's fire the DPL GR. the first sentence of the article is The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is experimenting with ... Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article? Would you read an article claiming that Debian buys Ubuntu stock and then call the leader a fraud? What if the article would claim that KDE is sluggish in Debian? I'm deeply disappointed by the french cabal supporting this DPL bashing. Please do feel responsible for the fate of the project after such a stupid vote. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:19:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Sven Luther] and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? OH NO YOU DON'T. Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right. Look who's talking. This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is _not_ about debian-installer. It is indeed not about me, THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU BRING IT UP? -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Loïc Minier wrote: the first sentence of the article is The volunteer-based Debian GNU/Linux is experimenting with ... Why on earth are you giving a shit to some random broken article? It's not a random article, it's the link given by Anthony himself with the link to dunc-tank.org. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:55:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:19:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Sven Luther] and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? OH NO YOU DON'T. Hehe, you couldn't resist replying right. Look who's talking. This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is _not_ about debian-installer. It is indeed not about me, THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU BRING IT UP? Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so, and the issue with d-i and frans and me is part of it. I am under clear censorship if i ever want to participate in d-i again, and this is something clearly sick and not what i think debian is about. In the same way, trying to dictate what Anthony does or not, outside of his debian work, is clearly in the same category, so since the first one seemed acceptable by everyone, ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
[I am using a webmail from work, sorry for breaking the thread] [Loic Minier] So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs, for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to officially request funding? NO. Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat[...] This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project I will second it and withdraw my proposal. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project I will second it and withdraw my proposal. While I could do this, our voting system makes it ok to have very similar propositions in the same ballot, so there's no problem in adding a new proposal similar to mine. If you want, I can propose a second proposal, I don't think there's any problem with me sending two proposals. However, I think it would much simpler if you would simply withdraw your proposal and propose the stripped text instead. The rest is just FYI. This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html Let me quote http://www.dunc-tank.org/about.html: Dunc directly supports work on Debian, and is made up of a small group of people who use Debian and who want to see Debian improve. But Dunc is not endorsed by Debian, and Debian does not exercise any control over how Dunc operates. And http://www.dunc-tank.org/press.html: Dunc-Tank.org is an independent group of developers, users and supporters of Debian. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: [...] A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. The second page of the article includes the following quote from me, and a rough summary of the actual situation: It might turn out that Dunc-Tank is incompatible with Debian, and that's one of the reasons it's been quarantined into a separate group rather than being run as an experiment within Debian, but I personally don't think it will. Incidentally, as the Debian project is an association of individuals and not a for-profit organisation, there is no formal association with Dunc-Tank. Consequently, Dunc is not endorsed by Debian. However, Dunc consists entirely of Debian users who all share the common goal of bettering the distribution. For comparison, that article got my city wrong (I live in Brisbane as mentioned on the dunc-tank.org site, not Melbourne as was first in the article, but apparently now corrected), and the ITwire interview lists DPL elections as happening every two years, instead of every year. Other articles, such as the slashdot story get it right first go: Dunc-Tank is not affiliated with the Debian Project directly, and in fact was controversial on the debian-private list. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded; though I imagine I'll have to redo this once I understand the new procedures for proposing/seconding resolutions. I'm seconding this because I do think it's a fair question for the project to consider, and to make it clear I don't personally have any problem with being recalled if that's what the project thinks is right and proper. If I'm not DPL, I expect I'll continue doing what I have been: working on dunc-tank.org, working on helping the release team get the release out, poking at the security infrastructure to make sure it keeps behaving itself, and continuing to support other folks who've approached me in the past year where they still want that support. Frankly, I think we're doing great, and I'm not remotely interested in quitting. One thing I really appreciate is that Debian's an environment where if you disagree with people you can be upfront about it, without worrying that there'll be payback later. I'm very grateful that people, who otherwise disagree with me, seem to trust my integrity and Debian's processes enough to be able to act according to their beliefs, and not forced to inaction out of fear. *That* is something to treasure. AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where needed. The newly elected DPL would serve for a year (unless recalled or resigning), meaning the 2007 election would presumably happen in November, rather than March. Given two weeks of discussion for this, two weeks of voting, and the nine week election process, the earliest we'd have a DPL would be the end of December by my count; so assuming this resolution passed and we released on time, we'd be doing so without a DPL... Oh, wait, I probably shouldn't be giving reasons to vote *for* the recall, should I? :) Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.21.1206 +0200]:
Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so,
I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when
I was about ready to forget all the crap that went down with your
name on it, you manage to swim to the surface again.
Please cut it.
About trends in Debian: thank $DEITY there are some. I'd hate to be
part of a project that stagnates.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :' :proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
$complex-{'data'}[$structures][$in_perl] = @{$can{'be'}-[$painful]};
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 03:30, John Goerzen a écrit : On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:26:19AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: The debate has been launched on -private, but it's clear to everyone that we were very far from a consensus[2]. So, instead of *beeing consistent* with the *consensus* of the opinions, a so called external structure has been launched. Onboard, we see many very well known You know, this is far from the first time a situation like this has happened. Some others, none of which caused proposals like this to occur, included: * Ubuntu is funding Debian developers due to a disagreement about direction, emphasis, and release practices. A very real fork, yet with many common developers with Debian. * Progeny funded Debian developers working on alternative Debian installers, configuration tools, and a host of other items and was led at the time by none other than the founder of Debian (Ian Murdock). Many of Progeny's employees were and are Debian developers, with a former DPL (Branden) among them. * Bruce, a former DPL, being involved with a venture capital firm that funded Debian developers. * Debian itself donated $1000 to the Gnome project to fund its development due to a dispute with KDE over Qt licensing. I don't recall this coming with strings such as can't be spent on programmer time. So there is even precedent for the project doing this sort of thing. just let me rephrase it then. 1. The DPL is the one that appoints the RM as per constitution 2. The DPL is deeply in a structure that has supposedly nothing to do with Debian, hence does its own choices, without needing any sort of Debian approval. 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's. that's a big conflict of interest. It's IMHO a major fault coming from a delegate (and especially the DPL) to take a role in such an organisation. It's just not compatible. If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL. If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate anymore, and especialy not DPL. For me, it's not a vote for or against dunc-tank. I'm against it under its current form, but there is nothing I can do about it. It's a vote about a conflict of interest between the position of beeing the DPL, and taking part into dunc. It's not a recall vote against Mr Towns, it's a recall procedure to ask him to make a choice between two uncompatible tasks. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp0ecSqnPE0C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:01:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.21.1206 +0200]: Because it is a general trend i see in debian since last year or so, I also see a trend, namely that you increasingly annoy me. Just when I was about ready to forget all the crap that went down with your name on it, you manage to swim to the surface again. Bah, if you don't want to read me, just don't, but it is clear that atitudes like yours clearly support that censorship imposed me, while at the same time mostly everyone is behaving in similar or worse behaviour than i ever did these past weeks, and they have dnot the excuses i had. Please cut it. Why ? The situation is still mostly the same as it was in may, despite all efforts i made, and you clearly do not read what i write, but what you think i am writing. About trends in Debian: thank $DEITY there are some. I'd hate to be part of a project that stagnates. Sure, my problem is when they deviate in the direction of censorship, dictatorship and inquisition. But then, maybe you find it ok, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
This one time, at band camp, Denis Barbier said: [I am using a webmail from work, sorry for breaking the thread] [Loic Minier] So, did the Debian Project Leader take the decision to fund our RMs, for example with Debian's money? Did he take the decision to officially request funding? NO. Instead, he did his best to take off his DPL hat[...] This is where our opinions diverge, see for instance http://www.dunc-tank.org/about/board.html Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project I will second it and withdraw my proposal. Fine: BEGIN PROPOSAL--- The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project -END PROPOSAL Here's hoping, although I'm not sure what having a GR to state the obvious is supposed to accomplish. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote: 3. That structure wants to pay the RM's. This is oversimplified. The structure offers itself to collect funds which will be clearly directed towards releasing etch by subventionning time of the RMs. It's not like the structure was collecting money *then* distributing it to whoever they think is good. It's not like it isn't clear to want-to-be sponsors that they are in fact subventionning Steve Langasek and Andreas Barth. The rules for the flow of money is clear from the beginning in dunc-tank, and wouldn't it be, it wouldn't get sponsors. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Coin, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The letter *and* the spirit of the Constitution have been flouted. And here is my rationale to second the recall of Anthony Towns. I do agree. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpND9YRr4rst.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 23:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit : But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. I hereby rescind my second. First, because, as Sven explained, we don't need more GRs. Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 16:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 23:30 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : Le mercredi 20 septembre 2006 à 19:43 +0200, Denis Barbier a écrit : But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. I hereby rescind my second. Oops, better with a signature. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Second, because the DPL is trying to use this GR as a means to legitimate his own project, and this would be the worst result. I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ rather than me? Come on. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeudi 21 septembre 2006 à 15:09 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit : I'm withdrawing my support because the developers might agree with AJ rather than me? Come on. Or maybe I'm withdrawing my support because I'm busy with my chainsaw. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Anthony Towns wrote: AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where needed. Ah, ok. I get it now. So sre these all GRs popping up just an attempt, or secret plan, to DoS poor Manoj? Excuse me while I start my daily wall2headbanging routine... -- ·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution : :' :-- Emma Goldman `. `' Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (unstable) `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 05:13:48PM +0200, Amaya wrote: Anthony Towns wrote: AIUI, if the resolution passes, the secretary will need to setup an immediate election, which will take nine weeks. During those nine weeks, the technical committee chair (Bdale Garbee) and secretary (Manoj Srivastava) will jointly exercise the DPL's powers where needed. Ah, ok. I get it now. So sre these all GRs popping up just an attempt, or secret plan, to DoS poor Manoj? Hehe, i hadn't thought about this :) Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL. If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate anymore, and especialy not DPL. Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue? Obiviously, this is a divisive issue, but I'm not sure how many people are upset by it. Would others who are have seconded this proposal, and/or others who are considering raising or secoding proposals about the dunc-tank project be satisfied if aj is not involved with dunc-tank project? Or, is the fact that it could still be run by Debian developers (sans aj) still a problem? Aj, what are your thoughts on not being involved with dunc-tank? Would the project still have a chance to meet its goals? -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 18:04, Graham Wilson a écrit : On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: If aj's stops beeing a member of dunc-tank, and do not works publicily for that dunc-tank, then I remove my second here, he can stay as DPL. If he prefers dunc-tank, and work for it, he must not be a delegate anymore, and especialy not DPL. Is this a suitable compromise? Are there enough people upset with dunc-tank to even try to reach a compromise on the issue? there is IMHO two distinct issues with dunc-tank: (1) the conflict of interests that motivated my second ; (2) the idea of the project itself. I do not agree with dunc-tank, but there is nothing that I can do against it, as it has been on purpose kept away from the project, so the debate about dunc-tank does not belong here, on -vote. And there is the problem that delegates that can take decisions in debian are involved in dunc-tank. If Aj decide not to be involved in dunk-tank anymore, then the problem (1) disappears. Only remains (2), but (2) has not to be solved or discussed through a recall procedure, that would be a blatant ad-hominem attack, while in my mind it's not. I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. I obviously only speak for myself. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp0ci9e7zF3P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Le jeu 21 septembre 2006 20:44, Graham Wilson a écrit : On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: I'd say that I'm not more comfortable with Steve McIntyre beeing involved and a DPL-assistant (or whatever name his position has) either, so if Aj stops beeing involved with dunc-tank, (1) is in fact half solved. Then shouldn't those who are attempting to recall aj also try to remove Steve from his delegate position? Because, as of now, it seems (based on the GRs on the table) that the only problem people have is with aj's involvement. Technically, if Aj is deposed, steve will be as well. And as I said, if Aj is retiring from dunc-tank, then Steve's position has to be clarified in a second stage IMHO yes. Nothing has been done against Steve's position as DPL-Assistant, especially because it's not allowed in the constitution. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp77wFZEe5hM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:45:59PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: Now, if you strip your counter-proposal down to The Dunc project is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project I will second it and withdraw my proposal. While I could do this, our voting system makes it ok to have very similar propositions in the same ballot, so there's no problem in adding a new proposal similar to mine. My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple question: whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. It obviously failed, many people got it wrong. But I do not understand why people keep writing proposals by mixing different items, some of them being divisive. For instance, your proposal embeds several statements: a. Debian supports its DPL. b. Debian blesses the Dunc project. c. Debian and Dunc are two distinct bodies. In my proposal, I deliberately avoided to say anything in favor of or against Dunc, because we gain nothing with such a statement. If it fails, this will also become a Debian failure, If it succeeds, well, this will also be good for Debian. If you want, I can propose a second proposal, I don't think there's any problem with me sending two proposals. However, I think it would much simpler if you would simply withdraw your proposal and propose the stripped text instead. It has a better chance of success if it is proposed by someone who is seen as supporting this experiment. Given the heated reactions, I doubt that I am the adequate person. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: It has a better chance of success if it is proposed by someone who is seen as supporting this experiment. Given the heated reactions, I doubt that I am the adequate person. Check [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a GPG signed ballot proposal (as I understand it). Please recall your GR proposal. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple question: whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. It obviously failed, many people got it wrong. Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj. But I do not understand why people keep writing proposals by mixing different items, some of them being divisive. For instance, your proposal embeds several statements: a. Debian supports its DPL. b. Debian blesses the Dunc project. c. Debian and Dunc are two distinct bodies. My proposal was mostly targetted at killing yours. :) Youe wrong with b., I never said Debian blesses Dunc. I said The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunc-Tank and The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping towards the release of Etch., which is something which was meant to be as consensual as we wish nice things to people wanting nice thinkgs for Debian, but it seems to have failed. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:43:11PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Denis Barbier wrote: My proposal was intended to be straightforward, to answer a simple question: whether the [Dunc] organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. It obviously failed, many people got it wrong. Obviously, some people jumped on the occasion because they dislike aj. I strongly disagree, and this assertion does not help this discussion. Anyway I was of course referring to those who disliked my proposal. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Hi, Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: The first article[2] on the topic's already been published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's favour, and to allow other groups that have different ideas about what priorities are important to encourage contributions to those areas. A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Denis Barbier [1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Seconded. Regards, Joey Denis Barbier wrote: Hi, Anthony Towns ends up his announce[1] about dunc-tank.org with these two paragraphs: The first article[2] on the topic's already been published; with one somewhat inaccuracy - this is not a Debian project, and is being specifically handled outside of Debian to both ensure that any conflict of interest that might occur can be decided by Debian in Debian's favour, and to allow other groups that have different ideas about what priorities are important to encourage contributions to those areas. A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. The article's title mentioned in the first paragraph is: Debian experiments with funding group to release 'etch' on time. Even if Anthony Towns and other Dunc-tankers claim that their project is not affiliated to Debian, external people will still see this project as being handled by the Debian Project Leader, and thus implicitly by the Debian project. But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Denis Barbier [1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/09/19#2006-09-19-omg [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1964607233;fp;4194304;fpid;1 -- GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 pgpaHxXswqfzG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
Denis, Anthony did his best to handle this cleanly and openly, from the very start. With his new funding project, he tried drawing a separation which I consider similar to the one I draw between my personal and my professional life. This separation is never perfect. The DPL is pursuing this project because he thinks this is for the good of Debian. Isn't it what being the DPL is all about? Instead of depriving us of our DPL, instead of starting elections, long flames, instead of painting Debian stupid, why don't you propose something *constructive*. I'm impressed by the energy and creativity Anthony found for this issue, even if I strongely objected to his initial plan. Please, don't be the one blocking innovation in Debian; be innovant instead. Thanks, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:00 -0400, Clint Adams wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Seconded. I take it that all the followers of this motion are candidates for taking on the DPL position instead? Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
also sprach Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.09.20.1943 +0200]: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I would like to propose that we answer to the valid question quoted in the second paragraph above by recalling our Project Leader, as allowed by our Constitution (section 4.1.1) and am seeking seconds for this proposal. *Not* seconded. What the heck are you guys doing??? Let's release etch, please ffs. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems all language designers are arrogant. goes with the territory... -- larry wall signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:43:22PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: But we, Debian developers, can make this confusion vanish, and I This is outlandish and insulting. That a Debian developer should be held responsible every time someone in the press writes something inaccurate is terribly wrong. I applaud AJ for showing initiative and being willing to try new things to improve Debian. I don't agree with everything he's done, but this is an *experiment* and he described it as such. Furthermore, Debian should not be attempting to control the lives of developers outside of Debian. This represents a terrible intrusion into privacy and, moreover, an unreasonable demand upon volunteers. What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the speech of its developers or leadership. It is only by trying new ideas and having open and honest debate that Debian will improve. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Seconded. I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their judgement about recalling a DPL? Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL. Why is there any support at all for this? Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:41:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: What's worse, your complaint seems to be that AJ told someone what he was doing privately. Debian should not be seeking to restrict the speech of its developers or leadership. Bah, this is in line with what has been happening in debian recently anyway, remember our DPL made noise about censoring the mailing list and expulsing people from them in the electoral campaign, and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:44:19PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:10:05PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Seconded. I am shocked at the support that this is seeing, and I wonder if people are letting their feelings about this particular project cloud their judgement about recalling a DPL? Remember what we are saying here -- that because some Australian publication got some facts wrong, that we need to recall the DPL. Why is there any support at all for this? Publications have been getting things wrong about Debian for years. We should correct them, not shoot the person they wrote about. Let me quote Anthony Towns again: A question that has been raised is whether the organisation can be sufficiently outside of Debian when the DPL is intimately involved. I don't have the answer to that - in my opinion it can be, but whether this one is will be up to Debian to decide. This vote is in my opinion the best way to answer this question. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Recall the Project Leader
[Sven Luther] and i am under control of Frans over any post i make if i ever want to go back to working on d-i as i did before, and everyone found that normal behaviour, so what do you expect ? OH NO YOU DON'T. This thread is _not_ about you, it is _not_ about Frans Pop, and it is _not_ about debian-installer. Also, we've already heard it 100 times. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
