Re: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Thanks to those who have spotted errors and have proposed fixes! I am collecting more patches, and I will send an updated proposal as soon as possible. But I won't be able to do it earlier than tomorrow Wednesday, when I will be in the Northern hemisphere. El 21/11/23 a las 12:01, Miriam Ruiz escribió: > s/Discoverded/Discovered/ > s/fullfill/fulfill/ > > El dom, 19 nov 2023 a las 22:53, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt > Roeckx () escribió: > > > > A General Resolution has been started about a statement > > about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability > > Directive" > > > > More information can be found at: > > https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 > > > > > > Kurt Roeckx > > Debian Project Secretary > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
> "the EU aims to cripple": this is a strong statement that will annoy > all > readers who believe that the EU aims to make a better world and > possibly > reduce the support for and impact of the GR. Maybe "If accepted as > it > is, CRA will cripple" There are many such problems with the proposed text. An alternative text that aims to solve them is currently looking for seconds: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2023/11/msg00065.html -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Hello everybody, thank you for preparing this! Quick comments form somebody who does not have the time to follow debian-vote: "make the best system we can": Maybe this is a good opportunity to point at our social contract, to show to the readers who have no idea what Debian is how important that the statement is for us, and that it predates the discussions on the CRA. The word "upstream" appears for the first time in point 1b. I am unsure with people with superficial knowledge of what we are doing know what "upstream" means. "The social contract": maybe "Our social contract" is clearer? 2d as it is written feels anti-government, and why would governments listen the needs of an anti-government organisation? The point on centralisation is already made in 2c. It may be remindwd there that threat actors include unlawful governments (and that in EU there as as many governments as members). Then, I would suggest to center 2d on the protection of activists. Maybe it could be said that Debian accept anonymous contributions for that reason, and that (to my knowledge) the CRA does not take that kind of situation into account. "the EU aims to cripple": this is a strong statement that will annoy all readers who believe that the EU aims to make a better world and possibly reduce the support for and impact of the GR. Maybe "If accepted as it is, CRA will cripple" I hope you find my comments helpful. Even if the GR text does not change, I will vote for it anyway. Finally, the conclusion calls for exemptions for small businesses, but why not explicitely call for a clear excemption for large free software projects such as Debian, given all the uncertainty that the CRA would create. After all, we compete with commercial products, we aim to have users beyond our community, and we do send strong signals to our users that they can put a lot of trust on us. In that sense, it may be argued one day by others that we are doing some kind of commerce. Have a nice day, Charles
Re: General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
On 2023-11-19 22:45 +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > More information can be found at: > https://www.debian.org/vote/2023/vote_002 This is generally good, but can we fix the typos and English-as-2nd-language issues before voting? Or is it too late already? I don't feel we should be putting out an official project statement with mistakes/English like this. And (assuming we are going to fix this) it feels wrong to vote on a text before it is finalised. Things I noticed: 1) Discoverded -> Discovered 2) "a fine-tuned, well working system " This is very peculiar, not really correct, english. At the very least 'well-working' needs hyphenating. "well-functioning"? "tried-and-tested"? Maybe just re-arrange the sentence. 3) "to keep even with" -> "to retain parity with" 4) "It is not understandable why" -> "It is not comprehensible why" or probably better: "It is not understandable why the EU aims to" -> "It makes no sense for the EU to aim to" HTH (did none of the seconders notice this stuff?). I guess I should join -project or -vote some day... Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
