specific target numbers.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Getting my notifications set up properly in Salsa so that I don't miss
things that go there is still a bit of a work in progress.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Ilu writes:
> Am 08.12.23 um 21:13 schrieb Russ Allbery:
>> How about:
>> CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
> This would be real-english-english? ;-) If it has the same meaning, fine
> by me. I've pinged Santiago.
Yeah, casually you
Ilu writes:
> CRA + PLD proposals include regulations, that will be detrimental
> to FOSS
How about:
CRA and PLD proposals include regulations detrimental to FOSS
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
t decisions -- GRs should
> not be divisive or "nuclear", but a tool for gauging project acceptance
> of an idea.
I completely agree.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
seconding Bill's proposed ballot option because I don't want to
delegate this to the DPL either. I'm currently inclined to either vote
only Luca's more limited statement above none of the above, or vote none
of the above over all options.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://w
worth,
> I didn't see enough interest in extending the discussion period, so it
> ended on Saturday.
I believe Luca's ballot option reached five sponsors on Friday with my
sponsorship, which may have extended the discussion period because an
additional ballot option was added.
--
Russ
estion from the European
> Parliament on FOSS awareness:
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002473-ASW_EN.html
> (2) Debian Social Contract No. 2, 3 and 4
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract
> - GENERAL RESOLUTION ENDS -
> --
> Kind regards,
> Luca Boccassi
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
on may amend that option provided that
none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the amendment is
proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them do
disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.
So no one needs to second the amended version.
--
Rus
alk about this here," and I think that's a reasonable thing
to want. And there's really no way to build a comprehensive list of such
topics in advance.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
definition of the
word). I believe that's minor enough to be truly editorial, but of course
please speak up if you object.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>> Certainly given the narrow margin, we should do what we can to make it
>> easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer
>> to do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official
>>
gt; easy for those who want to provide an unofficial fully-free installer to
> do so. I think we might even want to link to it from the official page,
> inverting the way we currently do it.
I certainly have no objections to that if someone wants to do the work to
maintain it.
--
Russ All
o word the last two sufficiently succinctly to keep them on
one line without making them too cryptic. Any better suggestions very
much welcome.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
e potential complications of a conflict with the SC
and would rather accept a different compromise than risk constitutional
confusion if we're not willing to change the SC.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
and straightforward way of
providing the user with a choice about whether to use non-free software
and respecting that choice. But I completely understand how you arrived
at the conclusion that you did and I respect your reasoning. In some ways
it's probably more sound than mine.
--
Russ
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> I think what you're missing is that this changed about ten or fifteen
>> years ago. I can now buy a new off-the-shelf computer and run Debian on
>> it *immediately* because Linux now supports modern hardware and you don't
&
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> When I first got deeply interested in free software in the late 1990s,
>> I looked around and saw two basic mindsets towards free software. I'd
>> classify those as the FSF approach and the Debian approach. The FSF
E. The most likely case where option A
would win but not option E is if option E failed to get a 3:1 majority and
then option A was the favorite among the remaining options, but in that
case the SC amendment in the third step would presumably also fail to
gather a 3:1 majority.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
xact opposite.) But it's not the front on which the
ideological fight over the merits of software freedom is fought. It is,
at best, a tedious and irritating distraction.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
free
software; that's the point of this endeavor. But we don't tell users that
their hardware is useless and they need to buy new hardware in order to
maintain free software purity. We meet them where they are, and then help
them make their system as free as possible.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
n-free installer the most prominant and recommended
option, C says to make them roughly equivalent, and D says to maintain
something more like the status quo (although possibly with a bit less
"buried in the basement" difficulty in finding the non-free installer).
--
Russ Allbery
that's my rationale for why I think only option A
should have an SC-modifying version.
That said, if option B wins, we could also tackle this as part of the
follow-up work on rewording SC5. Or of course someone could propose
another option, which would be fine! (But I don't have the resourc
allows for multiple non-free sections. If it becomes relevant
by my proposal winning, we can then clean up the language in the
subsequent GR.
Hope this makes sense to everyone, and of course if anyone thinks I'm
making a big mistake, I'm very open to hearing that.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org
ne of the options, including yours as you point out, say that. So I am
not worried that Debian is moving in this direction, and this is an
abstract discussion rather than something I think is likely. But after
reading your message a couple of times, it felt important to me to stress
that I don't fe
to get at,
but I think it's a bit indirect.
How about:
We encourage careful review of the licensing of these packages before
use or redistribution, since the guarantees of the Debian Free
Software Guidelines do not apply to them.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
r whether the benefits of having that installer
around exceed the costs of maintaining it and explaining to users which
one to pick. (And like any other work tradeoff, presumably the tradeoff
would look differently the more people volunteer to help.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
ings, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some
> finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.
The part of me that likes to do code refactorings and maintenance releases
kind of wants to do a wording cleanup GR yearly or so, just to deal with
ambiguous language an
e installer, and I wasn't sure if that achieved what you
wanted when starting this GR.
I generally lean towards shorter GRs being better and leaving most
decisions to the relevant team, but only if that works for the relevant
team.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
lieve the intention is that we, Debian Developers, support
the non-free packages in the sense that we upload them and answer bug
reports, but it could also be read as "we endorse their use," which we do
not and don't really want to be saying. I think talking about
infrastructure makes
Steve McIntyre writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ansgar writes:
>>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>>&g
gestions. Maybe there's a good and fairly simple way to phrase
this that I'd think is clearly better!
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
amends the Social Contract to give the
installer team *permission* to include firmware, but they're not
*required* to include firmware and can continue to exercise judgment on
what they do and don't include.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
was already signed).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
for what's essentially bookkeeping. Suppose, for example, that
we want to split out some other bit of non-free in the future for some
non-SC-related reason (contrib or non-free debug symbols or whatever). It
feels weird to have to amend the SC just to add the new name to a list.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
tware.
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
roject evolve.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
including non-free firmware in the installer (as I do) has also
indicated that this bothers them, though, which to me argues against
adding yet another option for something that maybe only I care about.
(Proposal B and proposal C both avoid this problem. I personally prefer
proposal A, though.)
-
none of the sponsors of that ballot option at the time the amendment
is proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them
do disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
agree is a
bug, or about who should be the maintainer for a package) the technical
committee may decide the matter.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
e better if we could figure that out in advance of the vote, of
course, since it might be relevant to choice ranking.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
your interpretation. I
missed that it had been more than 24 hours.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
st
disregard that sponsorship entirely.
So in other words I think either approach works at the secretary's
discretion, in the case where the threshold sponsorship was made and then
withdrawn before the secretary saw it.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Louis-Philippe Véronneau writes:
> On 2022-06-18 21 h 45, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There also seemed to be a lot of consensus on debian-private. Do we
>> need a GR? I would expect the project delegates to be responsive to
>> the consensus on debian-private and that we
it would be better to retain that flexibility.
There also seemed to be a lot of consensus on debian-private. Do we need
a GR? I would expect the project delegates to be responsive to the
consensus on debian-private and that we would only need a GR if there were
some sort of conflict.
--
Russ Allbe
rt from the things that
SPI explicitly handles.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
planners but
still has a legal structure to limit liability, despite running
conventions all over the world.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ion. But my understanding
is that the law *does* work that way in the US, and possibly some other
countries. And I do not believe (although I would be delighted to be
corrected if I'm wrong) that Software in the Public Interest currently
provides that sort of liability shield for Debian in th
rt of Debian.
That's... what I said?
> Are we really still talking about Russia?
No, which is why I changed the subject header.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ell us
that (although I'm dubious).
It's hard to shake the feeling that we've just gotten quite lucky over the
lifetime of the project (which is not very surprising; liability problems
are one of those "low likelihood, high impact" kinds of issues), and
shouldn't rely on that luck continuing.
--
users who may be doing
something that the author of the software may consider "evil" but that
many other people in the world would not.
In other words, I don't think we rejected that license because we don't
care whether our users do evil. I think we rejected that license because
the harm is greater than the benefits.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ertise and no special involvement.
If there's anything concrete that the Debian Project can do within the
scope of our work to assist members of the project who are directly
affected by the invasion, that would be another matter, but I also
strongly suspect that wouldn't require a GR.
process (and Kurt is
authoritative here, of course) is that if you rank NOTA equally with an
option, that vote is not part of V(A,D) or V(D,A) since neither option is
preferred over the other, and therefore has no effect either way on
whether an option is discarded because it doesn't meet majority.
--
or anyone else to disregard the plain language of the constitution.
If someone wants to change those rules, they can do so with a GR.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
rd escalation when you have no procedural basis for what
you're demanding, and it's quite concerning coming from someone who is
currently standing for DPL. It's also pointless; anyone else who replaces
the Project Secretary will have to do the same thing. The discretion
you're asking for simpl
over the years at the cost of requiring
multiple rounds of voting to resolve some GRs). But that would require a
constitutional change and thus another GR with a 3:1 majority.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
t allows *all* these
> properties to coexist. This is not to say that we *should* have secret
> ballots. Just that we *could*, without sacrificing transparency etc.
This is what the discussion of Belenios is about. It's a voting system
that makes better use of cryptographic fairy dust than what we're
c
list of votes and the list of voters. If those two lists aren't the same
length, that's fairly trivially detectable.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
and hasn't been
made in a hurry so far as I can tell), so wasn't sure if that was the
objection here or if there was something else I was missing.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
eral opposition to the idea.
Could you be a bit clearer about what would make a proposal not rushed
(whether or not you would then support it)? Are you specifically asking
that we agree on the full details of implementation before passing a GR
allowing for it? Or something else?
--
Russ Allber
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> So reading A.1.4 again, I can also see it as just saying that it really
> updates when the period is over. I think it would have just been more
> clear if A.1.1 said "The initial discussion period is 2 weeks."
Agreed. I'm sorry that I missed that.
tly saying that, though. (I
think there may have been one in an earlier draft that was lost in
subsequent editing.)
Regardless of whether that was my intent, at first glance I don't mind
your interpretation. It wasn't what I had intended, but it seems like a
fairly reasonable system.
our preferences among those options.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
are
closely related, to the extent that one of the changes may not be
desirable unless the other one is made at the same time.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
e last GR).
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
re the polling period during which
> Developers may cast their votes. [-Votes in leadership elections are-]
> [- kept secret, even after the election is finished.-]{++}
> The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
> nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Sam Hartman writes:
>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ> Maybe "mechanism" rather than "option"? Option implies to me
> Russ> that it might be some sort of up-front choice the voter has to
> Russ> make.
ally
required to proceed with the vote.
I think I'd rather restrict overrides in the specific case of the Project
Secretary to not have the "on hold" provision, and absorb the potential
complexity of having to re-run votes with different parameters if the
resulting GR is successful.
--
Russ
shed, just detached from their votes. See, for example:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_001_voters.txt
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
pulse of the mood of affected contributors without relying solely on what
people are willing to write in (sometimes contentious) email threads.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
rather than asking some poor person to manually verify and
count mailing list messages.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
at that point, FD
itself was a statement, but I would have preferred not to have opened
the box in the first place.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
be gained from repeating the same point, so it's easier to opt
out if participating in the public discussion makes you uncomfortable.
Voting is special because it matters that *you* vote, specifically.
Someone else voting the same way isn't a substitute.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@d
n't is a bit complicated
and I'm not sure what effect it would have.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ened to our members over other parts of Debian work, and
with a level of maliciousness and persistence that's quite staggering.
I do think it's reasonable for people to be worried about this.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
es shouldn't be
avoided, but I largely feel similarly. However, given that six members of
the project can force a vote on basically any topic, I don't think it's
realistic to assume that we will always be able to avoid political votes.
The bar to bringing a GR to a vote is (intentionally) not hig
Sam Hartman writes:
> In general I'm proposing that the chair of the TC make the decision of
> who acts as secretary for that vote. The rationale there is that they
> are the backup secretary for a number of constitutional functions
> already.
This works for me. Thank you!
--
nch of people can go back and verify their votes even
if they didn't initially, provided they retained the necessary
information.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
hould now start from the master branch of webmaster-team/webwml.
My diff is already merged (thanks, Laura!), along with an HTML syntax fix
that I'd missed.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
keep them in sync.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
to see how it goes.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
ny secret ballot mechanism for other votes, which gives us some built-in
defense against any problems, but it still makes me a little bit leery to
set up a situation where someone is running a vote about overriding a
decision that they may feel strongly about.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
lthough I think the latter may be a bit behind my proposal links for the
parts that changed in my proposal after Kurt's feedback and that Wouter's
proposal inherited. (I was going to send Wouter a PR and then forgot
about it.) I will try to fix that.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Choice 2: Amend resolution process, allow extension of discussion period
(Happy for any better options; this is just an initial proposal.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to address it immediately and the holidays were immediately
upcoming, I would have withdrawn the proposal and then reintroduced it on
January 3rd after the holidays, thus restarting the discussion clock then.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signatu
ers of
procedure.
Rename §A.6 to §A.5.
Replace the paragraph at the end of §A.6 (now §A.5) with:
When the vote counting mechanism of the Standard Resolution Procedure
is to be used, the text which refers to it must specify who has a
casting vote, the quorum, the default option,
3. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
procedure.
[-Strike section A.5 in its entirety.-]Rename [-section A.6-]{+§A.6+} to
[-A.5.-]{+§A.5.+}
Replace the paragraph at the end of [-section A.6-]{+§A.6+} (now
[-A.5)-]{+§A.5)+} with:
When the vote counting m
ace the paragraph at the end of §A.6 (now §A.5) with:
When the vote counting mechanism of the Standard Resolution Procedure
is to be used, the text which refers to it must specify who has a
casting vote, the quorum, the default option, and any supermajority
requirement. The default option must not have any supermajority
requirements.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
onsors,
>including sponsors who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
>extension will not be active and the discussion time does not change.
> 6. Once the discussion time expires, any pending time extension
>proposals that have not yet received their required number
For the TC
part, I plan on using Sam's proposed wording.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Thank you very much for the review!
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>6. If a vote is canceled under point 6.3.1.4 later than 13 days
>> after the initial proposed resolution, the vote specified in
>>
ould finish well after the
voting period for the original GR had started.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
any further time extensions will extend the
>> discussion time by 72 hours.
>>
>> 5. Once the discussion time is longer than 4 weeks, any Developer may
>>object to further time extensions. Developers who have previously
>>proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the
>>number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders,
>>including seconders who will be ignored as per §A.3.3, the time
>>extension will not be active and the discussion time does not change.
>>
>> A.3. Rename to A.4.
>>
>> A.3.6 (now A.4.6): replace 'A.3.4' by 'A.4.4'.
>>
>> A.4. Rename to A.5.
>>
>> A.4.2 (now A.5.2): replace '§A.5' by '§A.6'.
>>
>> A.5. Rename (back) to A.6.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
> Could you provide this as a patches series or similar ?
> I tried to
e by the end of the day via
Salsa's repository and also as a Git repository people can clone and then
diff with whatever flags and tools they wish.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
at's also my understanding; I don't think anyone else has to do anything
unless they object. (But of course Kurt's ruling is the one to follow.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
fy who has a
casting vote, the quorum, the default option, and any supermajority
requirement. The default option must not have any supermajority
requirements.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
idn't get to webwml PRs today
but will try to get to that soon.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100:
>> Yes, indeed, no problem. Currently, I'm aware of only one correction
> I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :)
>> 4. The addition of a ballot option
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1
>> majority, and am seeking sponsors.
> This is now at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003
Thank you!
1 - 100 of 506 matches
Mail list logo
