Re: vote
Hi Martin, * Martin Loschwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-04-08 10:30]: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e [ 2 ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre [ 3 ] Choice 2: Raphael Hertzog [ 1 ] Choice 3: Marc Brockschmidt [ 4 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Can you tell me the purpose of your public vote apart from manipulating other people with vote rights who might be unsure yet about what they vote? Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgp8G1dou9TnT.pgp Description: PGP signature
vote
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e [ 2 ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre [ 3 ] Choice 2: Raphael Hertzog [ 1 ] Choice 3: Marc Brockschmidt [ 4 ] Choice 4: None Of The Above - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- pgpTtd9hSgBhA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: My vote
[ Please Cc me on replies, if any, I am not on -vote. ] On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:55AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi Manoj, I haven't yet got the ack for my vote but I guess I know the reason. Do you use the pristine Debian keyring? If so, could you please either refresh all keys or just mine, using the keyservers (like e.g. subkeys.pgp.net)? My encryption subkey expired recently and I did update the expiration date after the keyring was last regenerated. Yes, devotee uses the pristine Debian keyring, and it has to, according to the constitution: only people who have their keys in the Debian keyring are DD's, by definition; and I don't think I can take data from outside the official keyring for votes. Well, I checked vote.debian.org yesterday and saw the cronjob syncing the keyring twice daily from raff. So my votes are counted, as I appear on the list of voters, but I cannot check if my vote was counted right after the polls closed because I don't have access to my token... I hope that this doesn't make the vote subject to appeals but well, I guess the secretary could still access the voter - secret token association? (Somehow key id - secret token has to be saved, otherwise votes couldn't be overwritten.) Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp Kern Debian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Debian Release Assistant `. `' xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] `-finger pkern/[EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Draft ballot for the project leader vote
Hi, The following is a draft ballot for comment. The order of the candidates names was determined by a virtual coin toss. manoj == Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, March 30th, 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, April 12th, 2008 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] The details of the candidate platforms can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/platforms/ HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the platforms and rebuttals. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1 = X = 4). Please read the platforms in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank None Of The Above as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the None Of The Above choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the None Of The Above choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the None Of The Above choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed, encrypted ballot. Devotee accepts mail that either contains only an unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail (RFC 3156 compliant). - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e [ ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre [ ] Choice 2: Raphaël Hertzog [ ] Choice 3: Marc Brockschmidt [ ] Choice 4: None Of The Above - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEfKAfcRBACUXaIj4oWt/8DJP4oTGQbPuKz+LT2oyNf8Qn3vWiPAkIbtlQZm waP71NOwRWhk7Q/K9jXptzCKt2TflENV1/5p1rD3aqECC2n0sDZxb8X+buNVXFYo yHJKv3L2KIHS/ffKDRRTal0WM85Lo2ycYCpPAYH6VBr5nvF59pFjJ6cYwwCgzg4X sMuSP0tDgDCVctW4gTi7H28EAIRn78kWAD24dxd+ENNgy+l5fHZa9dKEgahjHX2b 0dHq2ofue87Su4RdQnF/BVRwbPshlsy505dfz/VONprJep6TPGSc8DhUMOy15BbG 46uHtepyggjOCu/6Tm119PGZVFzwgm3XPGpH8mNqTBvszzNeiCBaYjY4Yd4I+eyJ +XTDA/4m7BVH9lgNsAHb+DSx9ea8al4D2cJzosjrqgHk51cXIUb7KrZOCpZO81L4 FJVA8XLwzoHezMKbE3woqn8mveDFCNK+CNgQb8pYdnSr+3YZLCcLOVmxyvg6JVPv 7ZpeqbwbapkfmUW3Z2eIao+7A0RRWdQae3eTA5NemoBkBrKTxrRZRGViaWFuIFBy b2plY3QgTGVhZGVyIEVsZWN0aW9uIDIwMDggdm90ZSBrZXkgKEVwaGVtZXJhbCBL ZXkpIDxsZWFkZXIyMDA4QHZvdGUuZGViaWFuLm9yZz6IZgQTEQIAJgUCR8oB9wIb AwUJAECZgAYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEIWU111AZSmj0lYAoJPb Fpl8C38SntpqFYIHJNsgPfoqAJ9tLagyADxZ8Ygt8QAQ5W9iw1AD2IhGBBARAgAG BQJHyhl+AAoJECG62ru/JEJMJ5kAn3os1PG8O70qAle/CVBXNqTVKlf4AJ45fkHw mzn6txuwnYhbJOJ3OjYG57kCDQRHygH6EAgAgdRlGoGVafv7Y3Fl72l8iR37I0ih GDGPNsAAgOAaLqYXV8x7CobVIENHDkjZCB6xBjZH9UDyRljNJIxTbOI+MUE3KJSO 29x4vqefUl/FDRKahi/nTCiPq96XtMqNhssryQ8V1Uu7ql1DSVeKfzITW7HbpPhB jCVZMeyad0ydvMlDJeY4BxTHZiyBYAZ+VybO+lxTU2JTWUTFPM/DAMsrtcfMGD2z QUEQnaLjZ02mN0ajVz0T0Ej8s5H9ZD+tWByhTD9g4dPO+WTBrZH0SnjtcbMwEM1S +VVemfEKa+LpvdGwT08DtgeHuX7JTU8IAmTJi8LofHllyz6N6y9mXQ1tLwADBQf+ IUn99MZdUa/Y0YZdOFATKd4x+4ATaQwg4P2WG42ncibHKX4JScujz4jUfqKZqnOU FNqVXp7XbE86A4xXKxFLzq+AquT2HX7ySdd45fODoL/hwg4km17LpcnBCm5NvIC+ EmTmTNxdSAfS7TYtjAuWBhVGOb7rquTrlTMlYPuXvM99doR02E/IH3QJ1fLJPMlh Gw9cITwYO2d+6h1UYPAGgzCzq0vcDlQsBrG5H+hl/PqT2e4CzV5VlyKY/R4QWo/p gnia8R+8NfFSeyRPgPqpTrdRe8pF6C/jxrx3UfPvPJiTCXLRrvrcpG2Pjn7UAQDq wPz+CxTBr06rH2i1IQqoo4hPBBgRAgAPBQJHygH6AhsMBQkAQJmAAAoJEIWU111A ZSmjCgUAoIPhXxjTDyEjifLs2ErzDRmhZQmXAJ9rNGI8nyl+8YUPK7hr8Q2EirgH tA== =b2Aa -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- -- Brain off-line, please wait. Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org// 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpNxV0xNnpoG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Second draft ballot for the project leader vote 2008
Hi, I forgot that some people still can't deal with ë in an email. Here is a revised ballot. manoj --8---cut here---start-8--- Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, March 30th, 2008 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, April 12th, 2008 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] The details of the candidate platforms can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/platforms/ HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the platforms and rebuttals. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Continue till you reach your last choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1 = X = 4). Please read the platforms in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank None Of The Above as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the None Of The Above choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the None Of The Above choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the None Of The Above choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed, encrypted ballot. Devotee accepts mail that either contains only an unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail (RFC 3156 compliant). - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- d81e16a2-03b6-4340-84f2-51de89b8185e [ ] Choice 1: Steve McIntyre [ ] Choice 2: Raphael Hertzog [ ] Choice 3: Marc Brockschmidt [ ] Choice 4: None Of The Above - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEfKAfcRBACUXaIj4oWt/8DJP4oTGQbPuKz+LT2oyNf8Qn3vWiPAkIbtlQZm waP71NOwRWhk7Q/K9jXptzCKt2TflENV1/5p1rD3aqECC2n0sDZxb8X+buNVXFYo yHJKv3L2KIHS/ffKDRRTal0WM85Lo2ycYCpPAYH6VBr5nvF59pFjJ6cYwwCgzg4X sMuSP0tDgDCVctW4gTi7H28EAIRn78kWAD24dxd+ENNgy+l5fHZa9dKEgahjHX2b 0dHq2ofue87Su4RdQnF/BVRwbPshlsy505dfz/VONprJep6TPGSc8DhUMOy15BbG 46uHtepyggjOCu/6Tm119PGZVFzwgm3XPGpH8mNqTBvszzNeiCBaYjY4Yd4I+eyJ +XTDA/4m7BVH9lgNsAHb+DSx9ea8al4D2cJzosjrqgHk51cXIUb7KrZOCpZO81L4 FJVA8XLwzoHezMKbE3woqn8mveDFCNK+CNgQb8pYdnSr+3YZLCcLOVmxyvg6JVPv 7ZpeqbwbapkfmUW3Z2eIao+7A0RRWdQae3eTA5NemoBkBrKTxrRZRGViaWFuIFBy b2plY3QgTGVhZGVyIEVsZWN0aW9uIDIwMDggdm90ZSBrZXkgKEVwaGVtZXJhbCBL ZXkpIDxsZWFkZXIyMDA4QHZvdGUuZGViaWFuLm9yZz6IZgQTEQIAJgUCR8oB9wIb AwUJAECZgAYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEIWU111AZSmj0lYAoJPb Fpl8C38SntpqFYIHJNsgPfoqAJ9tLagyADxZ8Ygt8QAQ5W9iw1AD2IhGBBARAgAG BQJHyhl+AAoJECG62ru/JEJMJ5kAn3os1PG8O70qAle/CVBXNqTVKlf4AJ45fkHw mzn6txuwnYhbJOJ3OjYG57kCDQRHygH6EAgAgdRlGoGVafv7Y3Fl72l8iR37I0ih GDGPNsAAgOAaLqYXV8x7CobVIENHDkjZCB6xBjZH9UDyRljNJIxTbOI+MUE3KJSO 29x4vqefUl/FDRKahi/nTCiPq96XtMqNhssryQ8V1Uu7ql1DSVeKfzITW7HbpPhB jCVZMeyad0ydvMlDJeY4BxTHZiyBYAZ+VybO+lxTU2JTWUTFPM/DAMsrtcfMGD2z QUEQnaLjZ02mN0ajVz0T0Ej8s5H9ZD+tWByhTD9g4dPO+WTBrZH0SnjtcbMwEM1S +VVemfEKa+LpvdGwT08DtgeHuX7JTU8IAmTJi8LofHllyz6N6y9mXQ1tLwADBQf+ IUn99MZdUa/Y0YZdOFATKd4x+4ATaQwg4P2WG42ncibHKX4JScujz4jUfqKZqnOU FNqVXp7XbE86A4xXKxFLzq+AquT2HX7ySdd45fODoL/hwg4km17LpcnBCm5NvIC+ EmTmTNxdSAfS7TYtjAuWBhVGOb7rquTrlTMlYPuXvM99doR02E/IH3QJ1fLJPMlh Gw9cITwYO2d+6h1UYPAGgzCzq0vcDlQsBrG5H+hl/PqT2e4CzV5VlyKY/R4QWo/p gnia8R+8NfFSeyRPgPqpTrdRe8pF6C/jxrx3UfPvPJiTCXLRrvrcpG2Pjn7UAQDq wPz+CxTBr06rH2i1IQqoo4hPBBgRAgAPBQJHygH6AhsMBQkAQJmAAAoJEIWU111A ZSmjCgUAoIPhXxjTDyEjifLs2ErzDRmhZQmXAJ9rNGI8nyl+8YUPK7hr8Q2EirgH tA== =b2Aa -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- --8---cut here---end---8--- -- The good die young -- because they see it's no use living if you've got to be good. -- John Barrymore Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org// 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpEOZvdGInHY.pgp Description: PGP signature
its free for debian-vote@lists.debian.org
free adalt passwords www 32action dot cn superminis jackdaw paternal prebattle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vote/2007/vote_003
Hi, in the resolution text, at least 1 /ol is missing or there is 1 unessential ol, and I'm not sure but it may also need to be checked agains nested ol, ul and li. Regards -- .~.Nicolas Bertolissio /V\[EMAIL PROTECTED] // \\ /( )\ ^`~'^ Debian GNU-Linux signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Statistics page for the current GR vote
Hi, Vote page: http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 Statistics: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_upload/ manoj -- Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. Hassan I Sabbah Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpz6jp5EXTPi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Vote page ISO 8859-1 but contains UTF-8?
(I'm not subscribed to debian-www, so if you trim this to exclude -vote, please cc me) At http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 I noticed that Raphaél's name is written with the UTF-8 é, and the page itself defines the charset to be ISO 8859-1. Is this an artefact of the WWW pages or a simple typo in the vote page? -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote page ISO 8859-1 but contains UTF-8?
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 04:49:33PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: (I'm not subscribed to debian-www, so if you trim this to exclude -vote, please cc me) At http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 I noticed that Raphaél's name is written with the UTF-8 é, and the page itself defines the charset to be ISO 8859-1. Is this an artefact of the WWW pages or a simple typo in the vote page? Thanks Kalle, I fixed it. The webpage is encoded in latin1 but this single file was encoded in UTF-8. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote page ISO 8859-1 but contains UTF-8?
Hi, On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:30:35 +0100, Jens Seidel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The webpage is encoded in latin1 but this single file was encoded in UTF-8. Sorry about that. I just forgot that the page is not supposed to be in utf-8. Is it going to be very hard to recode the vote pages into utf-8? I confess I am ignorant of the long term policy regarding utf-8 for our web site. manoj -- Bye Bye PDP 10 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Calling for vote for pending GR
Hello Debian developers, According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007, --- The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform binary-only packages uploads for the same set of architectures. --- so in accordance with Debian Constitution A.2, I am hereby calling for vote. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large blue swirl here. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Calling for vote for pending GR
Hi, On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 22:28:30 +0100, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: According to the Debian secretary, the following GR has received the requisite seconds on Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Please provide the wording you want for the vote on vote.debian.org, preferably in wml format, and your suggestion for the form of the ballot, including a title for the vote. I'll provide a default unless suggestions are sent to me by the proposer and sponsors. On getting the wml, or by Wednesday, if nothing has been forthcoming, I'll create the vote page; set up the vote infrastructure, and have the vote up and running by next weekend by the latest. manoj -- Your fault -- core dumped Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Which issues would those be, then? I've posted lists in the past, such as http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html It is still a current problem. In No.2, aj decided to pay developers outside the project's control by calling for donations to fund debian release managers instead of improving dunc-tank, and there are no published measures or methods for this experiment on our project AFAICT. It is a non-design. No.3 already has a Discussion Is Over - maybe it won't be so, but what a way to consider something! Has there been a controversial issue where aj has sought consensus instead of taking it to the brink? -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:52:59AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Which issues would those be, then? I've posted lists in the past, such as http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00409.html If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation 4. Aj's handling of the non-free firmware vote. Aj asked me to hold my call for vote on frederik's proposal, and asked that we come up with a 'consensual' proposal. he then claims Manoj's proposal is consensual, while not only it is clear it is not, and it is contrary to the will of the kernel team. He then let's Manoj manipulate the vote to get his pet resolution voted and avoid having the better 'consensual' resolution, leaving the whole issue a complete mess, and forcing the RMs to release an interpretation of the vote, which is at odds with what was actually voted on. In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. AFAIK, I've not seen the request to aj for No.1 and he described it as being asked to review the situation - not to issue a ruling - in http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/05/msg00235.html It is still a current problem. Well, the original mediation was a joke, and aj's inability to mediate, or to apoint someone capable of actually understanding what a mediation is about, is what left us with this mess. But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that frans would leave the d-i team, and we would be left without a d-i release manager, but even then, this only proves that the mediation failed completely. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess. Not really. Messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in the long term. But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...] I don't see how guessing others' views helps here. -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] aj's inability to mediate [...] is what left us with this mess. Not really. Messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01054.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/03/msg01075.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/04/msg01076.html left us with that mess, but the ruling didn't offer any way to clear this mess up in the long term. Well, yes, the idea of the mediation was to solve the issue, not let it stay open forever, and hope it would go away. I have tried to do my best, but Frans is simply not making any effort, and since he has all the power and satisfaction, why should he ? Still, we can both agree But then, it is probably because aj was afraid that [...] I don't see how guessing others' views helps here. Well, given that the main complaint seems to be that frans did feel that i was not respectful enough (private communication, so no mail archive), and others have hinted that the release of etch was more important than solving this (again private irc exchange), i really don't know what else to guess. It would have helped if the mediation had involved some clear listing of the actual grieves, instead of giving all the reason to frans as it did. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Not always. It depends on the strength of views and actions of the 20. If they'll stand aside, then it is. If they object well, it isn't. Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. A few years ago, I would have probably agreed with that. Sadly, it doesn't work. If your decision annoys the 20 so much that they will attack the outcome, you've made a bad decision. Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? As I understood it, well-reasoned objections - even from a minority - can outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any definition. Probably, but I doubt it will be the last if this DPL continues. 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. A few years ago, I would have probably agreed with that. Sadly, it doesn't work. If your decision annoys the 20 so much that they will attack the outcome, you've made a bad decision. Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. It's possible that you've made a bad decision. However, you've made a decision with a consensus behind it, regardless of how vehement the 20% is, in my opinion. Again, I've seen this happen time and time again in the IETF, up to and including sparking endless formal protests from the people who were in the 20%, and it's still considered a consensus decision. My experience in the IETF tells me that sometimes this is the only way that you'll ever arrive at any decision if the group is large enough. I've seen IETF working groups where the only alternatives to doing something that angered a vocal minority would have been to release a standard that the majority thought was bad or to give up entirely. We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). As I understood it, well-reasoned objections - even from a minority - can outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. Yes, but that's *not* because of the consensus process. That's because of the technical review process, which is an entirely orthogonal metric. It's possible for a consensus to be technically wrong, which is why the IETF applies both a consensus process and expert review. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. One of the problems with applying a reasoned objection metric in practice is that one person's reasoned objection is another person's obdurate refusal to listen to reason. Plus, again speaking from my experience with the IETF, sometimes the rough part of the rough consensus *is* reasonable and there's simply an irreconcilable difference within the working group, with a strong majority in one direction and a reasoned minority in another. In that situation, one has to weigh the merits of releasing the document anyway or giving up. -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.31.0533 +0100]: Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Ah, if this is the misunderstanding: the infamous 80/20 rule (Pareto's principle) in this case meant: 20% of the participants of the discusionss make 80% of the noise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle -- 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 aus der kriegsschule des lebens - was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich härter. - friedrich nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Please go read my post again. I said a *minority* is making *most* of the noise. That has nothing to do with the DPL. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! I neither said disruption nor trouble. -- 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 my experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] also sprach MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.30.1107 +0100]: If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Please go read my post again. I said a *minority* is making *most* of the noise. That has nothing to do with the DPL. I have reread the post. I still claim that if for every 20 posting, there are 80 more, then any discontent posted *may* signify a much larger group of discontents. Unless there's some extra knowledge about how the visible 20 relates to the hidden 80, Pareto tells one little about the views of the 100. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! I neither said disruption nor trouble. Indeed, you in particular wrote shake up and waste of time. -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(a) definition general agreement : UNANIMITY and 2 definition group solidarity in sentiment and belief to get the biggest benefit - or maybe even any benefit. That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Personally, I think the RFC 3160 view of 'rough consensus, meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree' would be good enough. What is a very large majority these days? I suspect it should be larger than the margins that the DPL got in recent votes (3 to 1 and 5.77 to 1, if I've worked them out right). In general, it wouldn't be a practical requirement, but it's practical for most DPL powers. It's one of a few things which stop DPLs having absolute power. If the DPL cannot find a consensus, then there are other methods to reach a decision and the DPL has simplified access to some of them. [...] acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. Which explicit acknowledgement are you thinking of? Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). Can someone point me to one, please? www.ietf.org seems to have replaced its web search with google, which just returns noise when I try to find one, and I didn't find a decent index to the drums archive (when looking into the release situation of 2822). [...] One of the problems with applying a reasoned objection metric in practice is that one person's reasoned objection is another person's obdurate refusal to listen to reason. I agree, but I've not seen much attempt to discuss any objections lately, like http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00234.html or http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00026.html - the current approach seems to be to post self-contradicting messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/10/msg00027.html or use a technical measure like http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00238.html and declare Discussion Is Over. If one won't talk, of course no-one listens. Plus, again speaking from my experience with the IETF, sometimes the rough part of the rough consensus *is* reasonable and there's simply an irreconcilable difference within the working group, with a strong majority in one direction and a reasoned minority in another. In that situation, one has to weigh the merits of releasing the document anyway or giving up. That's the sort of time I meant when I wrote Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. I don't mean that the decision is evil or wrong necessarily, just that it's not a good strong decision. 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen. Which issues would those be, then? If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these three: 1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation 2. Using project funds to pay some developers 3. Revoking the policy editor delegation In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not* to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it. So, we have one issue that aj was forced to take action on, one issue that he acted on exactly as the constitution states, and one that IMO did require fast action, and I'd say that the consensus on policy changes is that no one developer should be able to make normative changes without peer review. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's certainly someting to strive for, but I don't think it's a practical *requirement* in an organization the size of Debian. I do agree that we shouldn't easily give up on trying to reach that form of stronger consensus. Personally, I think the RFC 3160 view of 'rough consensus, meaning that a very large majority of those who care must agree' would be good enough. What is a very large majority these days? I suspect it should be larger than the margins that the DPL got in recent votes (3 to 1 and 5.77 to 1, if I've worked them out right). Ah, okay, I think we can agree on that. If we're just arguing over what level of supermajority makes a consensus, I think we're just debating practical application and not really the underlying principle. In general, it wouldn't be a practical requirement, but it's practical for most DPL powers. It's one of a few things which stop DPLs having absolute power. If the DPL cannot find a consensus, then there are other methods to reach a decision and the DPL has simplified access to some of them. True. Numerous public statements by the IESG and by ADs over years of working groups in which I've participated, and release of documents for which there was exactly that sort of consensus (RFC 2822, for instance). Can someone point me to one, please? www.ietf.org seems to have replaced its web search with google, which just returns noise when I try to find one, and I didn't find a decent index to the drums archive (when looking into the release situation of 2822). Unfortunately, I can't, since I'm speaking from personal memory and didn't retain URLs. :/ We've had several rough consensus calls recently in USEFOR, and there was one major one with article numbers in the now-published NNTP standard. That's the sort of time I meant when I wrote Sometimes bad decisions are the only possible decisions, but I don't believe that's as common as the disputes under this DPL. I don't mean that the decision is evil or wrong necessarily, just that it's not a good strong decision. Ah, okay. I understand, then, I think. -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]: Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. A look back over the discussions makes for interesting reading: different issues have very different people unhappy with the DPL. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. Lose touch with reality? Seems a bit late for that, when there are DDs claiming to be glad to have a disruptive DPL who they say is just looking for ways to cause trouble, while also whinging about the disruption! 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. If that impression is accurate, it means the DPL is not making decisions which are consistent with the consensus of the opinions of the Developers as he was elected to do. That is to say: this trouble is partly the DPL's fault. Uh, 80/20 would generally be a consensus. Consensus as used in these sorts of discussions and documents is not synonymous with unanimity. It is consensus in the vein of M-W's 1(b) definition: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead. It's akin to strong majority. Compare the IETF rough consensus process, where it is explicitly acknowledged that there are often working group members who are part of the rough rather than the consensus. In any event, *this* particular vote and tempest is rapidly on its way to becoming moot through something that I think we can call consensus by any definition. -- 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: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Given that there's no easy way to get at the arguments for an against this vote, other than wading through hundreds of -vote mails, I cannot cast a vote. I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot suggests: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. -- .''`. 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 with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. however, this is not necessarily a good idea. it is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- rfc 1925 signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it wasn't accepted. Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hear hear. Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hey, you should have seconded my No more GRs until the etch release proposal weeks ago :) I was helding exactly the same argumentation as you are having now, but i was the laughing stock of everyone, including you back then. You won't probably not read this, since i believe you blacklisted me or something, so ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: I also don't understand why we vote whether to put something on hold or not until we vote about it. Or at least this is what the ballot suggests: It's a feature of the constitution: if a vote is held to reverse a DPL decision then a snap vote is held to decide if the decision should stand until the vote proper is run (section 4.2.4). Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Especially in this case, where it looks like the differences will be resolved before we ever get to a vote. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can see is that is available from the web archives. I can not find anything about this, so personally I think it is something strange happening. My questions are: * What have the project leader decided? (if anything) http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00233.html What delegations has been withdrawed? Why? * Why can't I find anything on debian-vote or the Debian vote pages? http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c874pto4b6q.fsf%40glaurung.internal.golden%2dgryphon.com%3e Everything _I_ write here can go public. [...] Why did you write to -private then? Redirecting to -vote by setting MFT. The respective thread with pointers starts here: http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c20061025194042.GA11221%40wuertele.net%3e cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Hi Thanks for pointing me to information about this vote. I obviously missed some parts of the debian-vote list, as I thought that newest was listed first. On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:11:10PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: On 2006-10-29 Ola Lundqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried to determine what this vote is all about. I'm not subscribed to either debian-vote or debian-devel so all I can see is that is available from the web archives. I can not find anything about this, so personally I think it is something strange happening. My questions are: * What have the project leader decided? (if anything) http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00233.html Thanks. What delegations has been withdrawed? Why? * Why can't I find anything on debian-vote or the Debian vote pages? http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c874pto4b6q.fsf%40glaurung.internal.golden%2dgryphon.com%3e Ok, goog do know. Everything _I_ write here can go public. [...] Why did you write to -private then? Redirecting to -vote by setting MFT. Because it was a reply to that list. The respective thread with pointers starts here: http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c20061025194042.GA11221%40wuertele.net%3e Thanks a lot. Regards, // Ola cu andreas -- The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal vision of the emperor's, and its inclusion in this work does not constitute tacit approval by the author or the publisher for any such projects, howsoever undertaken.(c) Jasper Ffforde -- --- Ola Lundqvist systemkonsult --- M Sc in IT Engineering / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37\ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD| | http://opalsys.net/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / --- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1211 +0100]: Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hey, you should have seconded my No more GRs until the etch release proposal weeks ago :) I was helding exactly the same argumentation as you are having now, but i was the laughing stock of everyone, including you back then. I think you failed to catch the irony. -- 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 NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 2) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1209 +0100]: I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. It should be. I voted 9/9 indicating my contempt for this vote, but it wasn't accepted. 0/0 was not accepted. Joey (Hess), was blank/blank allowed? Finally, I am getting annoyed by all these GRs and the waste of time that comes with them. Maybe I should thus propose a vote to resolve that DDs must now stop wasting time and get back to work. Hear hear. Frankly the theme on debian-vote lately seems to be vote [1] the opposite of anything proposed by Aj!. Not helpful. This is not my impression. My impression is that there's a small number of opponents making most of the noise. It's the 80/20 rule all over again. So far, I stand firmly behind aj in all of his decisions. I am glad to see a DPL in charge who is looking for ways to shake up the project before we rust or lose touch with reality. -- 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 i doubt larry wall ever uses strict. -- frederick heckel signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ 0 ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ 0 ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't actually know whether 0/0 is as invalid as I want it to be, but we'll see. You can basicly rank those 2 options the same using either: -- 11 22 The rest should get rejected. But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. -- 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 NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 1) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 04:57:46PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. This vote doesn't even have an quorum, according to the constitution. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. As far as I know, in our voting system each option needs to reach a quorum over the default option to be considered. The total number of votes doesn't matter. If you vote equal or lower than the default option, it doesn't add to the quorum. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1736 +0100]: In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. This vote doesn't even have an quorum, according to the constitution. Thanks for pointing this out; I have not memorised the constitution, and better things to do these days than to wade through thousands of mails about this stuff, or to analyse legal documents. In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. As far as I know, in our voting system each option needs to reach a quorum over the default option to be considered. The total number of votes doesn't matter. If you vote equal or lower than the default option, it doesn't add to the quorum. So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options equal? -- 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 NP: Porcupine Tree / Coma Divine (Disc 2) signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:57:46 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: also sprach Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.10.29.1613 +0100]: But as far as I know, it's just the same as not voting. And I'm not sure what you think an invalid vote would have as effect. In voting systems with a quorum, an invalid vote increases the number of cast votes and thus makes it less likely for an option to reach the quorum (which is expressed as a percentage). Please correct me if I am wrong. You are wrong :). This is true for general use of the quorum, but not how Debian works. ,[ § A.6.2 ] | 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other than |the default option which do not receive at least R votes ranking |that option above the default option are dropped from |consideration. ` In the Condorcet system, I guess voting equally for all options has the same effect. Or maybe not, since I may also add to the quorum as the vote is valid. No, you will not. manoj -- ... the heat come 'round and busted me for smiling on a cloudy day. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:41:26 +0100, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So is there a difference between not voting and voting all options equal? Yes, your name is recorded as someone who voted. Has no effect on quorum or the outcome, though. manoj -- QOTD: I haven't come far enough, and don't call me baby. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Where's the vote.debian.org page? -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:08:05 +0200, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Where's the vote.debian.org page? It shall be put up when someone has time for it. The proposers have not yet provided the wml for the vote page, nor their idea of the ballot; I have a monday deadline, and the vote.d.o page is not that high on my list of things to do. Remember, this mailing list is the authoritative repository of information about votes; the vote.d.o pages are a convenience offered on a best effort basis. manoj -- Conceit causes more conversation than wit. LaRouchefoucauld Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Hi, Please note that the voting period has been abbreviated to one week. manoj Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Saturday, 28 Oct 2006 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Friday, 03 Nov 2006 The following ballot is for voting on a immediate procedural vote to determine if the Debian project Leaders decision to un-delegate policy delegates remain on hold until the full vote is called, in accordance with section 4.2.2.4 of the Debian constitution. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOW TO VOTE Please read the debian-vote@lists.debian.org mailing lists for details on why this procedural vote is being called. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. You may optionally encrypt your ballot using the public key included below. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by Devotee (DEbian VOTe EnginE) using by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEVBK6wRBACsbjlsanpIl1F4IT6sWiML/khpUQjqtywggKt9hG0k4XpCIvsZ YzioNdJyzODLCTCZWmmUEA1P5mSPKPosvqopp967wpF0fyu2TLoTNJnCsDCnSz3q aofhlAF1LaOwfLDRpNFCW2J7bE+ELWBUhbPCN86T0D0ElelIvJvlR+maSwCgicvT ClbqL2WuiYkLSLhnIk6BmI0D/Rd2ZO1/wXuWmYHacD1rOxKVxk8Zn5/1zDE+VaL1 K2ZYMdDCZMojxjncEtEQU3oKDuKwggSn/lYfXsNNEaeqafNnIDMpNlYT86IQiTnl 979uKKiEuRYA3t6GtoquPX0g3BoRwgeDrNUmyWD+a+FWop/YqkkBJfz+mcdx/coq XIQEA/9ywGlON9hUSXa11t/p7ZuNd8IszEOA3MidQLHJEUGKCuv2Tb5LF41/kJ/1 2qljQTgRbxeEJ2plE2mz5tKelifKU4GWxz2EkOs7RnhrrqWNcx9betncsqKdoSvC ADpm9BCA/SkfkgO8QqRuzv49HdNi68mkVVbq19EnIodjq+gjR7RQVGhlIGltbWVk aWF0ZSBwcm9jZWR1cmFsIHZvdGUga2V5IChFcGhlbWVyYWwgS2V5KSA8Z3JfaW1t ZWRpYXRlQHZvdGUuZGViaWFuLm9yZz6IZgQTEQIAJgUCRUErrAIbAwUJABuvgAYL CQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEEMP13Z94uS6d1IAn1ar9cN/FvhbIYux qC9tF8cyQtJGAJ9WBnWVpGCQOYPFOCHvVwgkXSg4xIhGBBARAgAGBQJFQSx5AAoJ ECG62ru/JEJM4v8An3Vc4wGJT4VA+AYeBW5k0Ntn8UHRAJ9x+eQZTfXkkC+2L8WV tCoNwzcIebkCDQRFQSu9EAgAq1DQFKA2DASw++dQEmxG1gC2dz11CNfVJ/nKPBqQ SFVTwB4XndyrbOUJUwm1RsYbRIo+krresbBV977r6sCyunr3KmQ6hsySYjmzJK5t xgmJ3OpAnMisOaVxsf3YXhOUD1CSxLZImqcR1DkJiuDngZNR60517rtO1w8Z1cxk XGRqSZLQm/3ArQPe7lTn/4NQS/xdeTVoCtoIaQb2hbs2uuP132ndxR3HsaELdX65 /KEvod0zKlh9OrY1mdQhlJPUbV60JLiFXe+Lj1gB4+7mqePAUpGPg3fy8+bOiYZF QDZXan9Xfz8pfrbTfo5jNdH3LJ/UuqzxMmMBnXItAAtjWwADBQf6AhTIounlq95b AVHEE1JdeIBgw7FM9QXlU5F3pqc7G6Cri/ZUS/0vZRr/qg33kSbWH3goauMEOWoq RGc5b/CkRf8DSD9MYZxrC+5VGDE1kuPW5khaf3MWe+WUTy4cJcqFjCk5Ft2rRTdf 6UhSgRT35XrQEFmrK19nb83ohjsbMhPLXkSbSNcQMcr0s7htACHHC719gINEayUP k+oG7TdLrOKWjopziRGS/GGe69HQk+zx570S5U92+6Wbitf+VDtYvixCWYQgEtsD j8B1+KN6XCO1aMOkEw7rVvgvjAfQSQvEguMjzpEGIYbnVks5TFkBL4o4lKPyjM4+ ANq5MEKPwYhPBBgRAgAPBQJFQSu9AhsMBQkAG6+AAAoJEEMP13Z94uS6/VgAoIkj sP6tSN+jXDq2rLxzkDXjz5D8AJ9jxwI8fE+nkQd19FxfbRR9Owwkeg== =6S3R -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- arch-tag: 1c14135a-7b23-45f7-b0d5-78e68b24d4f8 -- My folks didn't come over on the Mayflower, but they were there to meet the boat. Debian Oroject Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vote.debian.org/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C pgpCoKm3kXjok.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
Debian Oroject Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 2808c3bb-6d17-49b6-98c8-c6a0a24bc686 [ ] Choice 1: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation remains on hold pending a vote [ ] Choice 2: The DPL's withdrawal of the delegation stands until a vote - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I'd like to note that since this vote does not offer a you're all insane and wasting my time crossposting this to debian-devel-announce, I won't be voting on it. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
Hello, The kernel team consider that neither of the two proposals currently under vote [1] are a good solution to the non-free firmware problem. Furthermore, a consensual proposal has now reached enough seconds [2] to be put to vote, and is much preferable, both in clearness of text as in actual content. The proposal made by Josselin (Choice 2) will have a hard time to pass, as it needs 3:1 supermajority. It gives a longer term exception for firmwares beyond the etch release, which we believe not being necessary, and furthermore, it is an amendment to the original proposal from Steve, now withdrawn, and is thus less clean. The proposal originally from Frederik as amended by Manoj (Choice 1) has serious issues. It doesn't correspond to the wish of the kernel team, as expressed by the position statement at [3] following the kernel team meeting about the firmware issue. This proposal is titled : Choice 1: Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues but this is highly misleading, since the actual proposal in many ways contradicts this. The proposal states : 1. It forces us to not release as part of etch those firmwares removed in sarge, which include popular drivers used for installation as tg3 and acenic (Point 3.). 2. It means illegal to distribute firmwares will have to go (good), altough it is silent about the sourceless GPL ones (Point 4.). 3. It means we will not distribute firmwares with non-DFSG free licenses (Point 4.). This is highly confusing, because the distinction is made on the licenses, and not on the actual freeness, and it thus favours firmwares under free licenses, but not respecting the terms of the licenses, over those firmwares whose copyright holder has clarified their licensing, like broadcom did for the tg3 license. Furthermore, the current choice 1, which will allow to ship sourceless GPLed firmwares, should have needed a 3:1 supermajority, as it directly contradicts the DFSG. For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion, and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). On behalf of the Debian Kernel Team, Friendly, Sven Luther [1] - http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 [2] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00183.html [3] - http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing#head-98e7641feaea08b775f4d5c58d071b77ff172c90 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
On Friday 13 October 2006 16:13, Sven Luther wrote: For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion, Why is this needed? Can't the new ballot be voted on anyway even if the current one is already accepted? As the vote is already underway (and the voting period almost finished), it seems that this call for recasting votes *could* have very undesired effects depending on who decides to recast their votes and who not. For example, I'd expect people who want a less restrictive solution for Etch to change their vote sooner than people who would prefer all firmware to be removed. It seems to me changing votes is very ill-advised and I would therefore urge all voters to just vote the current ballot in the way they think best, looking only at the options available in the ballot and to not be distracted by things that may or may not happen later. I at least will not change the vote I've already submitted. I would also urge Sven to follow up to d-d-a to cancel his advice to voters to change their vote. and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). Cheers, FJP pgpnJelkYYZZS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
Le ven 13 octobre 2006 16:13, Sven Luther a écrit : we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion, and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). I'm tired, pissed and more than irritated by youre repeated mails on the subject. Sorry pal, but people vote in their ame et conscience, let them vote, if the project is sensible, and that what you (and the kernel team blablabla) repeateadly repeat is true, then the project will do that. SO STOP HAMMERING LIKE THAT. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpNchv1ZewUU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:14:21PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 13 October 2006 16:13, Sven Luther wrote: For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not possible anymore to amend the current ballot, we urge all voters to vote Further Discussion, Why is this needed? Can't the new ballot be voted on anyway even if the current one is already accepted? Not with the current wording, accordying to Manoj. If Choice 1. passes, the we will have to amend the second proposal accordyingly, but this is an attempt not to do so. Also, considering the confusion involving the wording of the short description, we will have the same mess as in the cosmetic changes days, which i believe is not a good thing. As the vote is already underway (and the voting period almost finished), it seems that this call for recasting votes *could* have very undesired effects depending on who decides to recast their votes and who not. Well, voting the two proposals in order of preferance but below FD, should have no ill effect. For example, I'd expect people who want a less restrictive solution for Etch to change their vote sooner than people who would prefer all firmware to be removed. Which in itself lends strength to the claim that the wording of the short description is misleading, right ? It seems to me changing votes is very ill-advised and I would therefore urge all voters to just vote the current ballot in the way they think best, looking only at the options available in the ballot and to not be distracted by things that may or may not happen later. I at least will not change the vote I've already submitted. And how much of that is directly correlated to your anti-sven campaign ? Has has repeteadly been the case these past few month, your prejudice is showing, and you don't lose an occasion to bash on me, right ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: position statement from the kernel team over the current non-free firmware GR vote (Was: Call for votes for GR: : Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel)
On Friday 13 October 2006 17:30, Sven Luther wrote: And how much of that is directly correlated to your anti-sven campaign ? The mail is completely neutral and does not contain any negative or personal remark. And still you are able to interpret it as a personal attack? Well, ok, let me make it clear: NO, THE MAIL IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK! I really, honestly think that you are giving voters bad advise. I considered sending a mail to d-d-a myself, but decided that d-d-a is not a platform for discussion and that it would be better to politely ask you, with arguments, to cancel your request to voters yourself. (Some less friendly remarks removed from draft of this mail.) pgpmpWWTUlmOa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Firmware vote rationale
This is to record the reason behind my firmware GR vote (not that you are expected to mind what I think, but I wish to go on record at vote time anyway). Debian should in my view treat firmware differently than other software. Although this does not necessarily mean that Debian should distribute the firmware, trying to fit the DFSG to firmware is like trying to fit A.J.'s shoe to an elephant; the two were never made to go together. My vote: [ 1 ] Choice 1: Release Etch even with firmware [ 3 ] Choice 2: Special DFSG exception [3:1] [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion Choice 2 ranks below Further Discussion mostly because I am not yet sure that granting kernel upstream a permanent special privilege the DFSG denies other upstream developers is prudent in the long term. Highly valid, deeply considered arguments have been advanced in recent weeks and recent years on many sides of the firmware debate. This is no easy issue, but on the whole, I am persuaded that a narrow application of the DFSG to firmware does not serve Debian's vision well. The hardware engineers who make firmware blobs are very differently motivated than the proprietary software predators who distribute non-free software. The firmware thus produced serves a very different role. The Debian Project would be unwise to ignore the difference. -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Firmware vote rationale
Le jeudi 12 octobre 2006 à 14:23 +, Thaddeus H. Black a écrit : Choice 2 ranks below Further Discussion mostly because I am not yet sure that granting kernel upstream a permanent special privilege the DFSG denies other upstream developers is prudent in the long term. I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. The privilege disappears as soon as anyone provides a technical way to install Debian on hardware requiring these firmwares. There are already good ideas on how to do it so it's more a matter of personal investment than time. This could even - although very hypothetically - be done for etch if someone did all the required work. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Firmware vote rationale
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:23:05PM +, Thaddeus H. Black wrote: This is to record the reason behind my firmware GR vote (not that you are expected to mind what I think, but I wish to go on record at vote time anyway). Debian should in my view treat firmware differently than other software. Although this does not necessarily mean that Debian should distribute the firmware, trying to fit the DFSG to firmware is like trying to fit A.J.'s shoe to an elephant; the two were never made to go together. My vote: [ 1 ] Choice 1: Release Etch even with firmware [ 3 ] Choice 2: Special DFSG exception [3:1] [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion Notice that Choice 1:, including the amendment proposed by Manoj says : 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Sarge release in Etch 4. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. Point 3. says we cannot release etch with those firmwares which where stripped for the sarge release, which include, among others, the tg3 firmware, for a very popular gigabit ethernet driver. Point 4. forbids distribution of the illegally to distribute firmware, which include all those firmwares which are de-facto under the GPL, but lack sources. Point 4. also forbids distribution of DFSG non-free firmwares, and thus we must get ride of all the problematic firmwares, and the short title is highly misleading, if not a plain tentative to abuse the voter. As such, the best vote in this current situation, is to rank Further discussion above all other choices, and to consider the proposal favored by the kernel team, and which was coined to reach a consensus everyone could agree with, and found at : http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00183.html (Still needs 2 seconds though). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPG key problem with new vote keys
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the vote keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the key. This sometimes gives me a message like 'processed: 0, imported: 1'. When I then try to use a key like [EMAIL PROTECTED], gpg tells me that it doesn't find such a key. Any ideas about what that could be? Other keys seem to work fine... The purpose of the vote keys is to provide you the means of verifying the authenticity of replies to your vote. TTBOMK, devotee still does not support encrypted ballots (with no plans to change this), so no encryption keypair is generated. -- 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: GPG key problem with new vote keys
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:17:25 -0500, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the vote keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the key. This sometimes gives me a message like 'processed: 0, imported: 1'. When I then try to use a key like [EMAIL PROTECTED], gpg tells me that it doesn't find such a key. Any ideas about what that could be? Other keys seem to work fine... The purpose of the vote keys is to provide you the means of verifying the authenticity of replies to your vote. TTBOMK, devotee still does not support encrypted ballots (with no plans to change this), so no encryption keypair is generated. Err, we have supported encryupted ballots for over an year now, actually. 2005-04-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED]/devotee--devel--0.1--patch-27 And I did think I generated both a signing key and an encryption key. __ gpg --with-colons --list-keys gr_affirm tru:o:0:1159160750:1:3:1:5 pub:-:1024:17:1A3A2164B11223B4:2006-10-05:2006-10-26::-:Affirm the DPL vote key (Ephemeral Key) [EMAIL PROTECTED]::scESC: sub:-:2048:16:2F20202A191752AC:2006-10-05:2006-10-26:e: Does seem like the encryption key is present. manoj -- When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG key problem with new vote keys
Hello, I'm using mutt and gpg 1.4.5, but have severe problems using the vote keys. First, I do something like 'Ctrl-K' to import the key. This sometimes gives me a message like 'processed: 0, imported: 1'. When I then try to use a key like [EMAIL PROTECTED], gpg tells me that it doesn't find such a key. Any ideas about what that could be? Other keys seem to work fine... Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vote page locations on the recent call for votes
Hi, The call for votes sent our recently had a URL for the full text that we missing a path segment -- namely, the year. So, the correct URL's would be: http://vote.debian.org/2006/vote_005 http://vote.debian.org/2006/vote_006 http://vote.debian.org/2006/vote_007 A visit to http://vote.debian.org/, or indeed, any pages of previous vote, show a navigation bar that highlights current votes; so this should not have been hard to find. manoj -- A newspaper is a circulating library with high blood pressure. Arthure Bugs Baer Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far. Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* issue a call for votes unless they are the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote has suggested. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he could have done so himself. Since he hasn't, claiming that Manoj has resisted bringing the original proposal to a vote is incorrect. and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. There's nothing wrong with calling for a vote at any point after the minimum discussion period has elapsed. If you haven't submitted appropriate amendments by that point in time, then it's no one else's fault but your own. [If they haven't been seconded by enough people, then they just weren't popular enough.] These proposals have been around for weeks, they've been discussed for weeks. Lets get on with it. Don Armstrong -- I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system to be refuted by experience. -- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:01:10AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far. Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* issue a call for votes unless they are the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote has suggested. Maybe, but Manoj wearing a double hat on this, is troublesome. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he could have done so himself. Since he hasn't, claiming that Manoj has resisted bringing the original proposal to a vote is incorrect. I did do a call for vote when i finally noticed that it was our place to do it, i was flamed on irc and mailing lists to do so though. and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. There's nothing wrong with calling for a vote at any point after the minimum discussion period has elapsed. If you haven't submitted appropriate amendments by that point in time, then it's no one else's fault but your own. [If they haven't been seconded by enough people, then they just weren't popular enough.] Manoj was aware of the proposal being worked on, he even participated in its reviewing. These proposals have been around for weeks, they've been discussed for weeks. Lets get on with it. Please see the final RFC for the ballot proposed by me and frederik. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061006 01:21]: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through their body by banning somebody. This is wrong. d-release is a role account, and we made sure it is treated so. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse public? Why the $DEITY is this personal abuse even sent? How about checking the constitution before posting noise? (We can't recall the secretary, but maybe can reverse the DPL decision part of their appointment, AFAICT.) During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. One can suspect it, same as others suspect some other delegates of funny timings, but I think it needs actually listing times and say what should have been done to convince anyone of malpractice. Hope that explains, -- 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: Call for vote
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. Will this vote have secret ballots? -- ,''`. : :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/ `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for vote
This one time, at band camp, Romain Francoise said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. Will this vote have secret ballots? The constitution doesn't say it has to, so I see no reason to make this a secret ballot. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for a vote: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
Hi, The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. For operational reasons, I have decided to start and end the vote in the middle of the weekend (I am not able to guarantee being able to meet a schedule during the week day). I have changed s/;/,/, since otherwise devotee's config file parsing grammar throws a hissy fit. manoj Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to re-affirm support for the Debian project leader. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/vote_006 You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the GR and amendments, if any. The ballot does not claim to be complete rendition of the proposal(s), or even accurately depict the spirit of each proposal. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3). Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) (or encrypted) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- a65763d3-b1e2-4530-8ff8-aa5915274eb4 [ ] Choice 1: Re-affirm DPL, wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm DPL, do not endorse nor support his other projects [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEUkd5oRBACTLC62tOswiVU2lBgp4zfjPe1mLcWAIJiOHLlCmPPXvEVTIkLZ N83Fg8vlXrhNuYHekOArXoY9R1iyZ6FT8aePd+LGujsmYPD1+CdxU4SFa4t8rREf pgdT6oRCKSDx83oc+Yad5hzQAexCAbyeTDcWo4PHfXwPNO7nXXWN5nDRTwCgzNAm jh7amg71daBneWIlWj+lAcsD/0+XkB/0tk1dSck9OR3Ep6GoPTUot6rt+cU13zE6 MhKWsz4zzj2iEYCOq12SpvRs+VYt+WX7UyOIjRAgZqXMdP5pzSgmz960qy5ORE/S ZzylAwp3tac+VcjZMsYwVUmAAfMFPx4CCpCSbFzgETL0ws0mPZHi13NnZkdbkQm0 ElKBA/wK3x+5LaD51HadYFIzUx9+lnw8eLRzUX3OzZjtTe1eWLDbwZYISSEbCfp6 9Hhvpv6F2KwQLWDy+w3XqOnc1etWmCsVkmOIs69XCg++9dSLOV0OIolT9U3AUVeL 6Dw+pW7umSbzcERg8rGKDvdx9JsVrhYIfgkrMBJffxA5oN0aerRDQWZmaXJtIHRo ZSBEUEwgdm90ZSBrZXkgKEVwaGVtZXJhbCBLZXkpIDxncl9hZmZpcm1Adm90ZS5k ZWJpYW4ub3JnPohmBBMRAgAmBQJFJHeaAhsDBQkAG6+ABgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQGjohZLESI7Q1XwCeL3fZnUZNW4IsiCzCbJvFx2pIiVsAoIgl OzFFsKaV8M9BHarIlNrI6OVniEYEEBECAAYFAkUkeA4ACgkQIbrau78kQkyQbQCg hT36ccVZCY6Bo9zFl8lhI4p5h0AAoJO6M4m0VfanmFXfBj27GqC2D1GOuQINBEUk d6UQCACFH94kGNY3DRG+PkckkWH0SeW0Bt6/irn6kJ7eQxRrh4WCjJAR0KUwpdr7 N15VdVp0BJtSSb6MD2kKzblXgFdL8nLiONFj41JSV5QDeJr1sFfNZHo2mCYxdN/M pzKqBMnVgjWSN22pqDjT1AEb0jy2YhGYa7EydjOAT1oidv3XqjGK+B2Z9D9IbbtP gCrH3/YAchxszMSIKUnB+U5lv+Xuf0mJtptf3+2SAGeqjoeXS+bw8JrBMOjBtk5s jFsjlc3XKE2EP4R0ZazWTn9TmMzb49i/YXsisHB4ajCOYDDn1bM3YOhD9uxPjSeT 4QFesyDKdgtW3LcGbI03YXYhZNLHAAMFB/96yhdLwSAMI6wDWrH8uL1/lmeIwRbG s4k7JkSPRFITqEa45Xu9PW/EGB+3otJSEfM9T3+xXGEdK6ngE6Hj9xgpQGRWvkhF K0J6MiHa7aL0EeUx3SpDFSm4Pam2ENuAAK1BEOxX96U7iUNuCcCA/6GBa/cRxV2b ucp3uG3cOLJyAAE5/k/UKz5lv7GTUztwUOEKEcAC9HY/mQqLtV6RheOi6e0iWurM HTkDy164cWGCflj6eEraNzAZOrxwO0013lClqJeB+1KjYXKJoqgcI9g51xT31b1Z lcLdIYn+oOW7zMsAwk/i9Er5gPTaf0JmZKQ5oqYIRAVzo4PgJqWHGBEgiE8EGBEC AA8FAkUkd6UCGwwFCQAbr4AACgkQGjohZLESI7RblACgpe+nvUmlWUxTAxFXH/tL 0DYe570AoMy6S3fytHcnT4SWycDH35/rJy4g =7fz9 -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- arch-tag: 1c14135a-7b23-45f7-b0d5-78e68b24d4f8 -- Lawrence Radiation Laboratory keeps all its data in an old gray trunk. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
Re: Call for vote
Hi, On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. Will this vote have secret ballots? No, I don't see anything that implies that a general resolution for recalls needs to have a secret ballot. manoj -- I reject get-it-done, make-it-happen thinking. I want to slow things down so I understand them better. -- Governor Jerry Brown Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
Hi list masters and DPL, Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues, i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly disguised form. Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing, and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of what happened last spring. Sven Luther On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote: first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the important information for the vote, isn't it? No, it is because everybody who is remotely reasonable (with a few exceptions who are mostly forced to stay involved because of their roles in the project) has long since become totally disgusted with this anal discussion and the people pushing it . Instead of a simple GR that leaves the decision with what is acceptable for Etch with the Release Managers, we now have a convoluted proposal that tries to do a lot more than was ever intended. So, no, I will not support the current proposal (though I may vote for it). And, no, I am no longer interested in participating in the discussion, seeing as it is completely dominated by people I don't agree with anyway, who don't seem to be able to listen to arguments nor have any sense of what the majority of the project actually wants. IANAL, but at least I don't act like I am, like some others in this discussion who seem so unbelievably sure that _they_ are right and so, of course, nobody else can be. I have much more confidence in the more general consensus displayed by upstream and _all_ other distributions that firmware blobs *are* distributable under the GPL (of course, if there are individual drivers/firmware for which that is in doubt, this should be investigated, but I've lost any faith in the ability of people involved with debian-legal to provide an unbiased opinion on that). I'm willing to discuss if they are free or non-free according to the DFSG and the SC, and will argue that Debian should allow (at least limited) support for these types of files. The current discussion in no way helps the release of Etch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
Sven Luther wrote: Hi list masters and DPL, Hi Sven Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues, i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly disguised form. Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing, and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of what happened last spring. Communication is always between two or more ends... Sven Luther On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 05 October 2006 11:43, Frank Küster wrote: first of all, I wonder why so few people from the teams involved take part in this discussion. I assume one reason might be that they prefer IRC. However, debian-vote is the list that's supposed to hold the important information for the vote, isn't it? No, it is because everybody who is remotely reasonable (with a few exceptions who are mostly forced to stay involved because of their roles in the project) has long since become totally disgusted with this anal discussion and the people pushing it . I don't take part in the discussion as I think it's way too high volume to repeat points that were already brought to the list... Instead of a simple GR that leaves the decision with what is acceptable for Etch with the Release Managers, we now have a convoluted proposal that tries to do a lot more than was ever intended. So, no, I will not support the current proposal (though I may vote for it). And, no, I am no longer interested in participating in the discussion, As Frans is not interested in participating in the discussion anymore, I don't see what a ban would bring if it would be justified to ban him in the first place... The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. The tone of the messages was something that made it clear that you were not going to stop sending such mails to the list... Cheers Luk PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very clever when you just get unbanned... -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Hi list masters and DPL, Hi Sven Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues, i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly disguised form. Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing, and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of what happened last spring. Communication is always between two or more ends... Maybe, but then i don't see what such conversation brings if one party is acting in evident bad faith, and whose whole purpose is to hurt me and continnue making me the scapegoat in order to make my opinion count less. As Frans is not interested in participating in the discussion anymore, I don't see what a ban would bring if it would be justified to ban him in the first place... He says that, but he will again try to attack me in such a way, he has been doing so repeteadly over these last month, altough always in insidious and hidden ways. The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. The tone of the Because Frans ad-hominem attacked me in the first place (dismissing my opinion in the subject of module .udebs, and accusing me of having an hidden agenda). But then nobody saw anything wrong in that. messages was something that made it clear that you were not going to stop sending such mails to the list... And the tone of Frans message makes it clear that he will not stop sending such mails to the list, maybe not in the immediate future PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very clever when you just get unbanned... How was i to know i was unbanned ? Also, you have to be aware that Andreas Barth complained i didn't send information to the debian-release list concerning the new proposals, so what am i to do ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NO-OP vote ... Re: FIRST CALL FOR VOTES FOR DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 06:05:28PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 22fc4edd-1f6c-454f-b204-6aa0bad0ce1d [ ] Choice 1: DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic works [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Just for information. This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo (already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he intent to trigger further discussion about these issues around the edinbourg debconf time. So, i am not going to vote on this one. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Hi list masters and DPL, Hi Sven Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues, i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly disguised form. Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing, and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of what happened last spring. Communication is always between two or more ends... Maybe, but then i don't see what such conversation brings if one party is acting in evident bad faith, and whose whole purpose is to hurt me and continnue making me the scapegoat in order to make my opinion count less. Please, stop this whining it doesn't bring you anything. I don't believe Frans is acting in bad faith, though he might still not trust you or even like you, but that's something totally different... As Frans is not interested in participating in the discussion anymore, I don't see what a ban would bring if it would be justified to ban him in the first place... He says that, but he will again try to attack me in such a way, he has been doing so repeteadly over these last month, altough always in insidious and hidden ways. I don't believe he will try to attack you, though he might be cautious and you may be felt as attacked because of that... The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. The tone of the Because Frans ad-hominem attacked me in the first place (dismissing my opinion in the subject of module .udebs, and accusing me of having an hidden agenda). But then nobody saw anything wrong in that. Most people just want to work together, not reply to whining... Your accusations might be correct, though it doesn't bring you or the project anything if you keep repeating them... messages was something that made it clear that you were not going to stop sending such mails to the list... And the tone of Frans message makes it clear that he will not stop sending such mails to the list, maybe not in the immediate future I wouldn't count on that, people differ quite a bit... PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very clever when you just get unbanned... How was i to know i was unbanned ? Also, you have to be aware that Andreas Barth complained i didn't send information to the debian-release list concerning the new proposals, so what am i to do ? Andreas Barth asking you to send something to debian-release could be seen at least as a sign of being unbanned... You could send a notice about the proposals and maybe asking to join the discussion on debian-vote, but certainly not sending a Cc to debian-release in the middle of a discussion. Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:55:50PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Hi list masters and DPL, Hi Sven Since it seems Frans is not able to leave ad-hominem attacks out of this discussion, and given the precedent of my ban from -release on similar issues, i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, until such a time as he is able to discuss issues, without being able to resort to ad-hominem and defaming attacks like he has done here, even if in a slightly disguised form. Mails like his don't help the issue to be solved, bring absolutely nothing, and are borderline insulting, and nobody want to go into another repeat of what happened last spring. Communication is always between two or more ends... Maybe, but then i don't see what such conversation brings if one party is acting in evident bad faith, and whose whole purpose is to hurt me and continnue making me the scapegoat in order to make my opinion count less. Please, stop this whining it doesn't bring you anything. I don't believe Frans is acting in bad faith, though he might still not trust you or even like you, but that's something totally different... What do i care if he thrusts me, he is difaming me in public, and making degrading comments against me. As Frans is not interested in participating in the discussion anymore, I don't see what a ban would bring if it would be justified to ban him in the first place... He says that, but he will again try to attack me in such a way, he has been doing so repeteadly over these last month, altough always in insidious and hidden ways. I don't believe he will try to attack you, though he might be cautious and you may be felt as attacked because of that... He has done so twice already since i was banned from debian-release. The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. The tone of the Because Frans ad-hominem attacked me in the first place (dismissing my opinion in the subject of module .udebs, and accusing me of having an hidden agenda). But then nobody saw anything wrong in that. Most people just want to work together, not reply to whining... Your accusations might be correct, though it doesn't bring you or the project anything if you keep repeating them... Yes, except i am the perfect scapegoat half the project is dead set on to bash at the minor occasion, i am seriously sick of this, it is as if people are trying to drive me out. So, Frans can keep on insulting me and making insidious derogative comments, and everyone finds it just fine, while i get attacks on irc when i post perfectly reasonable stuff and try to have a reasonable discussion. Also, half the folk in this threads are repeating all the same things all over. messages was something that made it clear that you were not going to stop sending such mails to the list... And the tone of Frans message makes it clear that he will not stop sending such mails to the list, maybe not in the immediate future I wouldn't count on that, people differ quite a bit... Well, it has been a constant since around fall last year, so i have lost hope of it ever changing. PS: Sending Cc's to debian-release in the middle of a discussion is not very clever when you just get unbanned... How was i to know i was unbanned ? Also, you have to be aware that Andreas Barth complained i didn't send information to the debian-release list concerning the new proposals, so what am i to do ? Andreas Barth asking you to send something to debian-release could be seen at least as a sign of being unbanned... How would i know, vorlon told me weeks ago that he was going to ask for my unbanning, and when i asked you, i was told this was not the case, and i had no news since then. You could send a notice about the proposals and maybe asking to join the discussion on debian-vote, but certainly not sending a Cc to debian-release in the middle of a discussion. Are you sure i did that ? i don't remember CCing stuff in the middle of a thread, only sent there new threads, believing it will be blocked by the ban anyway. Cheers Not cheerfulness at all on my part. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^^ here is a no-op mail about: a so-called NO-OP vote ... […]
Just for information. This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo (already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he intent to trigger further discussion about these issues around the edinbourg debconf time. yay yay yay yay. that's your what, 100th 110th mail on the subject ? So, i am not going to vote on this one. very clever, if you're against sth, you have to vote against, else abstention goes to the wining side. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp1TUcSDYlKa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ...
Err, I didn't want to join this ugly subthread. But I do. Sven has earned quite some points in this list for trying to argue to the point. No matter whether he was wrong (nobody has really shown that?). Now his whining and the post to d-d-a has nearly emptied his account. However... Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't believe he will try to attack you, though he might be cautious and you may be felt as attacked because of that... Err, how come you believe he will not attack, when the last mail that we have from him was an attack? Calling the ones who do take part in this discussion as being not among those who [are] remotely reasonable (with a few exceptions who are mostly forced to stay involved because of their roles in the project) is a personal attack on Sven (and maybe others), what else? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Call for vote
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:19:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:02:22 +0200, Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. Will this vote have secret ballots? No, I don't see anything that implies that a general resolution for recalls needs to have a secret ballot. If there are good reasons to have secret ballots for leader election, it seems logical to me that the same reasons apply to a recall vote as well. Denis signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ^^^ here is a no-op mail abo ut: a so-called NO-OP vote ... […]
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:24:34PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Just for information. This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo (already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he intent to trigger further discussion about these issues around the edinbourg debconf time. yay yay yay yay. that's your what, 100th 110th mail on the subject ? Thanks very much, and also thanks to all those french guys who have nothing else to do with their time than bashing folk on irc, while proposing GRs to recall the DPL and other such nonsense. So, i am not going to vote on this one. very clever, if you're against sth, you have to vote against, else abstention goes to the wining side. so what ? you don't like Don's proposal, then you should have proposed an amendment to say something else. Voting further discussion doesn't mean voting for the opposite of don's amendment, it just means that you believe it should be further discussed, for whatever reason, either because you don't like the syntax, there is a typo in it you want corrected, you think there should be another amendment represeting the opposite view, or you consulted your astronomer and he said you it is not an auspisious day for holding a vote. A full no-op, so i am not going to vote on it. (or maybe i should, and vote both FD and the proposal equally ?). Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for voting period to start on the firmware vote
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:41:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for Manoj's amendment as accepted by Frederik [1] ended 4th Oct 2006 19:53:58 UTC, which is about 11 hours ago; so we could get on with calling for a vote and have this over and done with in a little over a week if the proposers and seconders are willing. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg5.html[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00567.html This is a call for votes to start on the firmware resolution: The proposed ballot is: [ ] Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues [ ] Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware as long as required [3:1] [ ] Further discussion I'm attaching the proposed WML page for this vote (vote_007.wml). I strongly oppose this. You know we are working on a clarification of Frederik's proposal, and there are two new proposal on the table getting seconds. This kind of behaviour on your part, are the ones which give credit to those accusing you of twisting the voting system to your liking, and as i was outraged when those accusations where made against you, i would much have preffered that you didn't act in such a way. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: The reason why you were banned from debian-release was mostly because of turning it in a discussion list which it is not intended for. It was rather because someone has an urge to feel power flowing through their body by banning somebody. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer may post to the list designated for proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other formal actions, which is -vote. So aiui, developers cannot be banned from -vote. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for voting period to start on the firmware vote
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for Manoj's amendment as accepted by Frederik [1] ended 4th Oct 2006 19:53:58 UTC, which is about 11 hours ago; so we could get on with calling for a vote and have this over and done with in a little over a week if the proposers and seconders are willing. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg5.html[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00567.html This is a call for votes to start on the firmware resolution: The proposed ballot is: [ ] Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues [ ] Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware as long as required [3:1] [ ] Further discussion I'm attaching the proposed WML page for this vote (vote_007.wml). Are there any objections to shortening the vote period for this vote? Don Armstrong -- LEADERSHIP -- A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with autodestructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own. -- The HipCrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar_ p256-7) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
draft ballot for the firmware vote
Hi, With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started. manoj Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday,8th October 2006 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 14th October 2006 The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution for a position statement on handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/vote_007 You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the GR and amendments, if any. The ballot does not claim to be complete rendition of the proposal(s), or even accurately depict the spirit of each proposal. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3). Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) (or encrypted) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- c2d43675-9efa-4809-a4aa-af042b62786e [ ] Choice 1: Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues [ ] Choice 2: Special exception to DFSG2 for firmware as long as required [3:1] [ ] Choice 3: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEUlcMIRBADkBqmldTkR5x0xM/yFAewXYxGO4MquFuY6jzdKbY5JnhuN8BTi PsdYrYQWs7d6BEcZDAyA6RCWQ9+kBc3R0UwbVTIobrtGypDbyHjsj1KYPV92oekT STm5IyqiBgl0NroZlE7hvkezovNBnoQAUVCu2UkC08rQPvqXej67VLCaxwCgg4OZ xrKLnWXdZqT4zXf/eWxhTv8EAK3yVGKW7F+oSdJepjIN41FyPZGSAiJ/I/XB2XKT lETqW5JGha/8NUB3+HfxthvaAhiUFgwW+prvrsEtBGH3BYSxifbpQf0MdguUATau nc3i5fYDUF7eqf5/8HulpvraRiiZxKrN5P5bOdCQDdS3Sz7uGNr54k4EGDESWTT9 +GIgA/0UcGDEE6/HFdmsNEV9cFzwgO5VOJf1r7kvi3ohx8lhPnwrhj1GlY7T2J// GPwIvQkBZkLRCJSlgUtmvAaqmSXyd60I4KvAfmA/kbmMpwvmdM5h6yjIzdF1LRh5 VL89zXY6Wqh/JZ5mj8Him6E0vUINTG1jO+X2G9p+mtc2jx2Cq7RDVGhlIGZpcm13 YXJlIHZvdGUga2V5IChFcGhlbWVyYWwgS2V5KSA8Z3JfZmlybXdhcmVAdm90ZS5k ZWJpYW4ub3JnPohmBBMRAgAmBQJFJXDCAhsDBQkAG6+ABgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQnhh2vFdCZexyxwCdHfwz2puQFqBheRyQ1W8OzEkq9JsAoIFA zj2O8bcDix6tUIlykiZuxWVaiEYEEBECAAYFAkUlcpIACgkQIbrau78kQkwbvACf W8VD0JVb7aUaRlldnNogPufJvyYAoIUpM+nu/b1ZDTJxRZxU8oGO+MKguQINBEUl cNQQCACx6rzKLdWxVWWQfB2QOR0Qf16SVsoHw5hDxPtvqq+fHOYBTpkPtO+AZ4Bh rvey70D9DaCqsaYQY98UtmzrMdrYSMUX4WUGP5XlISknL4hU0TLUfeqoFr6jDbnA jjGLgQjH5Cg+ZwcVjhlS77ejCphvRQYcy2ecJ9Q1/864zYHREyOUNVhk/mzciDBs SERMWEsKitrZpMdTHYKeuTcCYTO2P4SUj6FGgtj2KgaLpHyautNwwNe4RwLXJ/BY 2wvCLVKDnO4FaCSHz9GHdgVp/VFk8Cx7kGhsGS6Q8qpx0CYxVeCHNcXJ+6h9uCVo kL001C65bwHkj0LbQBBYl7KcalAfAAMFCACgM8dCNv+k/Hx6LyEXU2FM2j6gxkv2 yHUUHBxQJC16ZNqga1fA88yPj7FWLDnepyHKrR/+hjgRDvEtC0tfSaDzdVjKj7Wt AOB8ImFteZF1YwSA3ihu3+adqlxXmQps0LzXr0lkOam5Pg0i7XpnFVmGRke+0kev 2Da0NL/TM6hKilXHfWWoetOZ0pNc5QBDNpYJRirc3wpbJy8grYJuNU9jKPc98bkq YxrC3Tl981UX0U3aE17FijyUPpSQeTD9uheFE/hVOIeNMMw/0s4MFgLgTBKKf4AM +wjRHcQbme7Tdcuf4PCp3F3tk/HUClrIgbyNYl4bTOZzkK1CeGxxUE3EiE8EGBEC AA8FAkUlcNQCGwwFCQAbr4AACgkQnhh2vFdCZeyb+gCfQ+YdR9jD1k8zv9B4nVmV qBE3uuwAn2pM143eLdQ1HFV7b39K3C9RfhYW =0j8u -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- arch-tag: 1c14135a-7b23-45f7-b0d5-78e68b24d4f8 -- squatcho, n.: The button at the top of a baseball cap. Sniglets, Rich Hall Friends Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Asking for the ban of Frans Pop from debian-vote ... (Was: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware)
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:27:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: i now officially ask for Frans Pop to be banned from debian-vote, As per 4.2(5) of the constitution, it's required that any developer may post to the list designated for proposals, sponsors, amendments, calls for votes and other formal actions, which is -vote. So aiui, developers cannot be banned from -vote. Then we sure can require that he asks a third party to read and forward his mails. Or he can show proper behaviour, and not take ad-hominem (even disguised ones) attacks against posters holding opinion he disaproves of. This was already the behaviour he showed in all the dispute over the technical details of the d-i team, ever since last fall, and why he had me outcast from the d-i team, and why i asked for your mediation back in spring. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:28:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, With the vote being called, here is a draft ballot for the firmware vote. The voting period has not yet started. Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the constitution. During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from frank to vote, and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial position, and is not in order. It pains me to see you resorting to such base tricks. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A summary of the current firmware GRs (Was: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!))
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 22:15, Sven Luther wrote: I hope this clarifies things for you and others. Hah! Thanks to you, Frans and the others who have tried to actually respond to my question, but seeing the thread grow into yet another thread discussing the issues at hand (and with a flamewarlet on the editorial GR in it, too, for added fun - see KDE #96997 [*]), with various references to the other threads which have done the same: No, it has not clarified things to me. I guess I will either abstain or vote further discussion for the forseeable future. Has delegating the decision to a team been proposed yet? (Coupled with the obligation that all DDs will stfu about the issue whatever that team decides to do.) (That might have been a joke.) cheers -- vbi [*] https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96997 -- Protect your privacy - encrypt your email: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro pgp9TjkZtzQHP.pgp Description: PGP signature
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
Call for a vote: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
Hi, This is a call for a vote on the General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader. The proposed ballot is: [ ] Re-affirm DPL; wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank [ ] Re-affirm DPL; do not endorse nor support his other projects [ ] Further discussion I'm attaching the proposed WML page for this vote (vote_006.wml). Bye, -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] define-tag pagetitleGeneral Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian 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 and amendment/th tdThursday, 21supst/sup September, 2006/td tdSunday,1supst/sup October, 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 Loïc Minier [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /p vseconds / ol li Raphaël Hertzog [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Kalle Kivimaa [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Wouter Verhelst [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Gaudenz Steinlin [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Stephen Gran [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Ben Pfaff [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Erich Schubert [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Russ Allbery [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Anthony Towns [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Bdale Garbee [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Anibal Monsalve Salazar [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Eric Evans [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Neil McGovern [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Martin F Krafft [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Daniel Ruoso [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li /ol vtext / p Choice 1. The actual text of the GR is: /p pre The Debian Project reaffirms its support to its DPL. The Debian Project does not object to the experiment named Dunc-Tank, lead by Anthony Towns, the current DPL, and Steve Mc Intyre, the Second in Charge. However, this particular experiment is not the result of a decision of the Debian Project. The Debian Project wishes success to projects funding Debian or helping towards the release of Etch. /pre vamendmentproposera / p Josselin Mouette [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /p vamendmentsecondsa / ol li Samuel Hocevar [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Pierre Habouzit [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Amaya Rodrigo Sastre [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Frederik Schueler [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Aurélien Jarno [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li /ol vamendmenttexta / p Choice 2. The actual text of the GR is: /p pre The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian. /pre vmindiscuss / p Denis Barbier and Loïc 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_006_quorum.log1000 developers/a, we have: /p pre #include 'vote_006_quorum.txt' /pre #include 'vote_006_quorum.inc' vstatistics / p For this GR, as always a href=suppl_006_statsstatistics/a shall be gathered about ballots received and acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting period. Additionally, the list of a href=vote_006_voters.txtvoters/a would be made
Re: Call for a vote: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
Le mercredi 04 octobre 2006 à 23:32 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit : Hi, This is a call for a vote on the General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader. The proposed ballot is: [ ] Re-affirm DPL; wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank [ ] Re-affirm DPL; do not endorse nor support his other projects [ ] Further discussion I'm attaching the proposed WML page for this vote (vote_006.wml). I agree with the call for vote, the proposed ballot and the WML page. -- .''`. 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: 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: Call for vote
Hi, The draft ballot for this vote is appended. Please note that this is a draft ballot, voting has not yet started. For operational reasons, I have decided to start and end the vote in the middle of the weekend (I am not able to guarantee being able to meet a schedule during the week day). manoj Voting period starts 00:00:01 UTC on Sunday, 08 Oct 2006 Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC on Saturday, 14 Oct 2006 The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to recall the Debian project leader, as stated in the constitution, section 4.1.1.. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/vote_005 You may see the constitution at http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution. For voting questions contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] HOW TO VOTE First, read the full text of the GR and amendments, if any. The ballot does not claim to be complete rendition of the proposal(s), or even accurately depict the spirit of each proposal. Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 2. You may skip numbers. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 2). Make sure you have read the proposal in detail. To vote no, no matter what rank Further discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the Further discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) (or encrypted) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 49a98df6-2bd4-40c8-a559-7e15212dbd26 [ ] Choice 1: Recall the project leader [ ] Choice 2: Further discussion - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEUkQDcRBAC3fuJuK+hz6o5C/ZDs3h2C+zvbxBSO4HeSv6udc5ZULP+Vwt1L 71jRyUojnTM0YvxEN+IMT5AikMyi1i4wNT3MPLE1mfkU/Gw7ojGz6IWd0kxX+9uY +jjJzumMOzpxuYJnTxYsbRQSWmp2TDOGu9VAiIetjZ8xQ2tsK6GDb0pMuwCgqORB yvNmlImotcvVnpeZY+Z4a/cD/iszBcCDKOPjsrNq4cPT6k1f4Agv/rxS0/2XnZ55 uverMqNWxu1byY6JBIg83w0yQB4yTqkZhrJsvtYWto2ABN+4m13IdfrI9hMYxC0w RnjGO0aEgKgpQ7AiWi0CCkstg15nVbHDdXcw4BSESQ6y+mNCgsP+8lpgyZahtgJJ /wMuA/sHvKyTsF5Vx9dMaiH2m8OXRtTH3hpl1evf1CYbGmeDTVknRIlZgu2UHNSG Nqw3qWzd4OG+n4C6wBe0jgGB4aqpgvH05gIqDdBIZHehymU4JZ2VG94ZeuQeV993 syxVcfh6wrrPpiN3MZTgbImJyCw1ExZ/U4UpYVAO6ukG0jP4gLQ/RFBMIFJlY2Fs bCB2b3RlIGtleSAoRXBoZW1lcmFsIEtleSkgPGdyX3JlY2FsbEB2b3RlLmRlYmlh bi5vcmc+iGYEExECACYFAkUkQDcCGwMFCQAbr4AGCwkIBwMCBBUCCAMEFgIDAQIe AQIXgAAKCRDf8qGX1Drzk0DVAJ47iK2Kd0IXxYIT9HpY90hEdarURACdFyyRN4z2 xguakjVYAsf+aCDriCeIRgQQEQIABgUCRSR1pAAKCRAhutq7vyRCTF3qAJ4+mb/y xCSQVYH4RJWmju/KkvZb2QCguoT2jA225jXq/7+lVzcp9746a9u5Ag0ERSRAPxAI ANZplO5TZ0upoRU61VCLOZmuUK9pCMdsY/4U9ERHCCVC1UkwG2SfJivHCXDLtAzv hRKF5qP1K8IoPDih2g/T8leUB8TsKIWWqSw8mpZiujvFVpnHxqmHgbhSRyhEE+Ym fGA6Q6iZ/jF2S/IhqfAKK4Z5fDl3LCKvvQ+UWxsyvp4PUqGwMFVcADfC19hm4D0g Gg0G385wrxJKr+zZtowNlDkBqMFqoRy1iJpwpZW+6XCk7rRSQNZRq9ZudDTISL9+ QoHkZAnltpPVgfjqW/TWpFVTEZel20RhvpcrULKzoC0rXzzLTaZPQCGTF/2jblWW ptpunLY9gxQYj7GUxZk+Ai8ABAsIAMxa7y7Sx1mDq1CPpEQN3+q0Vf2yUwVmPj1g 3g99mUfY1dnlU/fCd4/9Zc1iZdonLM65HTOkDMN4CDM/EyR9HAZoqF7w7CuiFVgI SSMhH7Z1KOvwtfRGq6pW7JAr1TwdDZs9xG+IazxSkR3J74as6+Aas4iYBzCfxhwj cACdCffvd+mgmvmWbhyVqr9qW9RlWyebI4jJmcw9TO1eKO/RAH/vQmLYqQwWhb3v 1SuZQdXp26zCNFlr7wvmqWi+qF7Pz2bBeG0r5EzXdrEpD/kUbGXRPaoZ3YKRydAz snl8dz3X7yBb3uqrzl0BmBAqvzGLotGEM9xtSYx4LpQ3xUaxn2+ITwQYEQIADwUC RSRAPwIbDAUJABuvgAAKCRDf8qGX1DrzkwvlAKCnE6iEb7YDrYrAgkQful3go4/3 3QCfem0J3RBzet4D1vYjfnlJJ6VLMvw= =mF4e -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- arch-tag: 1c14135a-7b23-45f7-b0d5-78e68b24d4f8 -- Kliban's First Law of Dining: Never eat anything bigger than your head. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:53:27PM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote: On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:48:10PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: That said, the kernel team meeting on saturday evening resulted in what will probably be a new proposal, and at the same time a nice summary of the changes. Stay tuned for more infos. Sven, nobody besides you on the kernel team suggested that the proposed position statement should be submitted as a GR. Furthermore, I have explicitly explained It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here). I don't know why he chose not to hold this publicly, but only with some given folk of all team, but in any case, we need to come up with a new proposal signed up by everyone, particularly since Don's GR is a no-op, and will not change anything. why I think it should *not* be submitted as a GR (mostly because it duplicates in part or in full the proposals already on the table). I don't know if it is our position statement will become a GR or not, but it should serve as explanation of how things stand, and thus it is rather urgent to send it out to debian-vote or elsewhere, once it is confirmed, and then a GR needs to be coined to reflect our position, since both Frederik's original GR and Manoj's one lack a bit of clarity, which is not the case of your draft. For those interested, the draft of the kernel team's position statement, approved by all members present during Saturday's meeting, is available at: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/people/jurij/firmware-position-statement.txt?op=filesc=1 Thanks for posting the draft, do you know what we are waiting for to send it to -release and -boot for their confirmation of approval or comments ? Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than most GRs out there. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Sven Luther wrote: Jurij, i still think your draft is lightyears more clear and to the point than most GRs out there. One comment. As BLOB stands for Binary Large OBject, binary blob is somewhat strange. Regards, Joey -- Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. 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: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here). While we were discussing that, Manoj proposed an amendment to Frederik's proposal that seems to have achieved consensus amongst the various folks who care, which seems like the ideal outcome to me. As long as there's a proposal that roughly meets the concerns of the kernel, boot, RM and -legal folks, I'm perfectly happy. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The Editorial amendments to SC GR was not a null operation; it quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on -vote at the time, with AJ (then the RM) heavily involved.[1] It was a large number of people's understanding that this was what the SC originally intended, but this view was not universally held, which was why the GR was necessary. For the editorial changes GR, I didn't have the time to follow the entire flamewar and voted in belief that the changes were indeed editorial because I believed in the text in the CfV. I was horror-stricken after the GR passed and people said what we had indeed voted for. I have a sincere distrust for CfVs since then since I feel badly misled. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 06:06:24PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:48:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: It would serve as summary, if nothing else. But we also had a discussion with the DPL, who suggested a new GR which could be signed by the kernel team, the d-i team and the RMs (signed = seconded here). While we were discussing that, Manoj proposed an amendment to Frederik's proposal that seems to have achieved consensus amongst the various folks No, because it is unclear. I personally strongly oppose Manoj's amendments in its current form, because it is clear to me that it means something else than what people want to actually happen. who care, which seems like the ideal outcome to me. As long as there's a proposal that roughly meets the concerns of the kernel, boot, RM and -legal folks, I'm perfectly happy. Ok, so let's improve on Manoj's amendment, taking the actual content of the draft position statement as a basis, and then we will have a consensus. But standalone, Manoj's proposal will leave us in a worse mess, because it will be interpreted differently to different people, and in particular it means the removal of the tg3 driver, which was not what is intented. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] As I understand what's going on, instead of having a single vote with all the firmware-related options laid out on the ballot, we are apparently going to have a series of votes about related topics (GR 2006/004 being the first) with only the option to vote in favor or for further discussion. This defeats the whole point of Condorcet voting - instead of being able to rank the various proposed actions, voters will have to say Yea or Nay (well, Further Discussion) on each item. I feel the same. I have sympathy for the secretary's plight, though: there have been a lot of related proposals which should have been phrased as narrow amendments to the original proposal (now withdrawn) but have been put forwards as independent proposals, either clearly or by style. Also, the near-continuous stream of waffly new proposals and strangely-behaving seconders keeps resetting the minimum discussion periods. If these weren't taken to the vote as independent proposals when they share no text, it's possible they would be filibustered forever. If we want something more likely to find a compromise than a sequence of point votes, the secretary needs some help from proposers and seconders. Please, proposers: 1. Follow the conventions stated in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00014.html 2. Further, leave your rationale out of the voted text, to maximise its support and reduce possibility of error. 3. Present related options as clear amendments if at all possible, and not 'replace the whole text with ...' ones. and one for vote-callers and the secretary: 4. Please can we have ballots which list the original proposal, each amendment, then list all non-conflicting combinations, such as: - Firmware resolution with no amendments is withdrawn [ ] Firmware resolution with amendment A (etch exception) [ ] Firmware resolution with amendment B (only distributables) [ ] Firmware resolution with amendment C (all firmware) [ ] Firmware resolution with amendments A and B [ ] Firmware resolution with amendments A and C - Amendments B and C conflict - Amendments A, B and C conflict [ ] Further discussion (where amendments B and C conflict.) -- 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: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Editorial amendments to SC GR was not a null operation; it quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all works distributed in main. Adjective holy misplacement, Batman! Rather, it changed the social contract to make the DFSG clearly apply to all works distributed in main, because some developers won't accept that programs are not the only software. This is old ground. Please at least ACK there is 1 view of it. -- 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: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:45:57 +0200, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 04:15:10PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The Editorial amendments to SC GR was not a null operation; it quite clearly changed the social contract to make the DFSG apply to all works distributed in main. This was rather laboriously discussed on -vote at the time, with AJ (then the RM) heavily involved.[1] It was a large number of people's understanding that this was what the SC originally intended, but this view was not universally held, which was why the GR was necessary. For the editorial changes GR, I didn't have the time to follow the entire flamewar and voted in belief that the changes were indeed editorial because I believed in the text in the CfV. I was horror-stricken after the GR passed and people said what we had indeed voted for. The text in the CFV was indeed what went into the SC, so you were not wrong to believe in that. I have a sincere distrust for CfVs since then since I feel badly misled. In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy. The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to you (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that I could have done about that. Next time, do read the full text of what you are voting on. manoj -- Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a funeral? It is because we are not the person involved. -- Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy. In that particular case, the heading was still editorial changes, and given the public cries that the results (not the voting results) gave, he was not alone in that misconception. Therefore I don't think it's fair to call him lazy. If you've missed that there was a discussion what removing or adding the word software in a sentence means (a sentence that talks, as you perceive, about Free Software, anyway), it's just normal that you don't understand the implications. The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to you (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that I could have done about that. I don't think it's true. It has been pointed out that some of the consequences have already been raised during the discussion, but were overheard. And that's all Adrian and Marc were talking about. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:10:55 +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that particular GR, the full text of the resolution was included in every ballot and CFV. If you were mislead, that means you did not even bother to read the mail you used to vote with -- sounds like the person doing the misleading was just you being lazy. In that particular case, the heading was still editorial changes, Because I believed that to be true, yes. and given the public cries that the results (not the voting results) gave, he was not alone in that misconception. The surprise came because people did not expect Sarge release to be delayed (I personally thought we would just put in an apology for not quite meeting the SC in the release notes, myself). Therefore I don't think it's fair to call him lazy. If you've I think anyone who did not read the ballot they used to vote on is indeed lazy, and did not o due diligence. But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this conversation, missed that there was a discussion what removing or adding the word software in a sentence means (a sentence that talks, as you perceive, about Free Software, anyway), it's just normal that you don't understand the implications. The heading was what the GR was discussed under for 5 months, and was on the draft ballot. How come no one corrected me and told me my heading was incorrect _then_, rahter than bitching after the fact and implying I misled people by choosing that heading? The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to you (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that I could have done about that. I don't think it's true. It has been pointed out that some of the consequences have already been raised during the discussion, but were overheard. And that's all Adrian and Marc were talking about. Chapter and verse, please. Which mailing list? Which post? Where was the issue of it ont being editorial raised that I overlooked when I set the title? Or you think implying that I discarded objections to the title without proof is fair, but me calling people who did not read the ballot is unfair? manoj tired of being labeled as deceptive, misleading, or abusive of his postiion -- The person who marries for money usually earns every penny of it. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!)
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, if you think calling him lazy is unfair, but him implying I deceived him is fair, I amnot sure I can continue this conversation, I do not think he implied that *you* (the secretary) deceived him. He wrote that he believed in the text of the GR, but since the complete text of the GR was not drafted by you (I think the short title was, with an okay by the proposers?), I have no reason to believe he feels deceived by *you*. What seems to be clear is that people have little trust in being able to judge what a GR is about if they were not able to follow the discussion. And that's a problem we shouldn't ignore, or put aside by discussing whether anybody was deceived years ago, or called someone deceiver, or whatever. missed that there was a discussion what removing or adding the word software in a sentence means (a sentence that talks, as you perceive, about Free Software, anyway), it's just normal that you don't understand the implications. The heading was what the GR was discussed under for 5 months, and was on the draft ballot. How come no one corrected me and told me my heading was incorrect _then_, I have no idea; I just got my account when the editorial changes GR was put to vote, I think, and didn't take part since I didn't feel qualified. rahter than bitching after the fact and implying I misled people by choosing that heading? I guess people did that back then, but I didn't hear such things now. The consequences of those words may have come as a surprise to you (and indeed, they did to me as well), but there was nothing that I could have done about that. I don't think it's true. It has been pointed out that some of the consequences have already been raised during the discussion, but were overheard. And that's all Adrian and Marc were talking about. Chapter and verse, please. Which mailing list? Which post? Somebody asserted this week, probably on vote, that he'd already done that during the discussion. I missed the details, and frankly I don't care much. I think no one can deny that important facts and statements of opinion that *are* made in these huge threads, dispersed throughout the debian lists, will be missed by a significant proportion of DDs. Where was the issue of it ont being editorial raised that I overlooked when I set the title? Or you think implying that I discarded objections to the title without proof is fair, but me calling people who did not read the ballot is unfair? The very fact that the title was used throughout the discussion period, as you said, shows that it cannot be just you, or not at all you, who is to be blamed. manoj tired of being labeled as deceptive, misleading, or abusive of his postiion Maybe that's more in your ear that in people's (my, Marc's) mouth? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
A summary of the current firmware GRs (Was: Summary? (Or: my vote is for sale!))
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:36:09PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: Yodel! With the first (?) CfV out now about non-free kernel firmwares: I'm not going to vote, sorry. I don't have the time to wade through tons of mailing list archives, of which 1/3 is repetitions of previously made statements, 1/3 is presumably flames or close to it, and 1/3 is trivial corrections, with the few substantial arguments scattered in it... In short: did anybody do a reasonably balanced and concise writeup about what is going on on the firmware front regarding - what are the important arguments and counter-arguments? - who supports which options? More information can be found at the start of : http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing Including the last draft at a consensual GR proposal following Frederik's original proposal, as well as a draft of the position statement by the debian-kernel team regarding these issues. As i understand, the proposal currently under vote, namely the one from Don Armstrong, is basically a no-op reaffirming our commitment to the current wording of the SC, namely that firmware code is indeed to be considered a program, and affected by the DFSG. Of the remaining proposals under vote, only 2 have reached enough seconds, and need to be considered. These are : 1) The proposal of the kernel team (and hopefully the RM and d-i team will join in with the final version of it), which have us remove from etch all firmware which are non-distributable, but keep those firmwares which are otherwise non-free, as well as those who lack a license file, and are thus implicitly under the GPL, but lack source. This is a commitment for etch, and the kernel team hopes that this will be solved for etch+1. 2) The proposal made by Josselin, which basically proposes that we don't require the source code for firmwares 'as long as there are no other technical means to install and run the Debian system on these devices', which is a longer lasting proposal, since it may extend to etch+1 and beyond. (I feel that in the end both proposals are mostly identic, except that the first one is explicitly mentioning etch, and that the second one is more long termed. Josselin, do you think you could reword your proposal as an amendment to the final draft based on Frederik's proposal, instead of the now defunct proposal from Steve). I hope this clarifies things for you and others. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
