Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Gard Spreemann]

Hi. I do share your worry and your overall sentiment, but:

Julian Andres Klode  writes:

> For example, people could be encouraged to batch bug fixes into larger
> uploads rather than uploading them immediately, use compression
> algorithms that emit less CO2.

I suspect that if every DD who spent any extra time doing this batching
instead worked those extra minutes at $dayjob and donated one percent of
their extra income to the right place would do more to mitigate climate
change. Or if they just distracted someone in the street and had them
stop streaming TikTok for a mere second :-)

I really don't mean to criticize a well-meaning desire to do something
about a terrible problem, but I think we must be vary of approaches that
fiddle with the margins of the problem instead of making real strides.


Just my two øre.


 Best,
 Gard


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Russ Allbery]

Davide Prina  writes:

> So, I think that if Debian must think about climate change, probably it
> must be focused on energy efficiency to gain more results.

I agree that energy efficiency is probably the place where we could most
directly contribute as a project while focusing on the things that we're
all good at.  (I'm not discounting also talking about how we manage
conferences and travel, but that's more "we exist in the world" territory
rather than the core focus of the project.)

A somewhat tedious and not-sexy but possibly effective place that we could
focus is on ensuring modern power management features are correctly
enabled and working properly in Debian installations out of the box.  My
understanding is that Linux has gained quite a few facilities for reducing
power consumption, not all of them are automatic, and there are some
complex interactions with other system components such as the desktop
environment.  There may be some low-hanging fruit here that would help
Debian consume less power by default, or places where there is no one
right decision but we could provide a low-power option to users who want
it.

This also has the advantage that, whether or not the specific framing of
this thread is inspiring to a given Debian contributor, everyone wants
longer laptop battery life and lower power bills for their data centers.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Steffen Möller]

On 13.04.22 17:29, Steffen Möller wrote:


On 13.04.22 17:01, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else
could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You have a point. And I can agree that Debian should not do anything
that is not part of being an universal operating system.

I have seen more heated (pun intended) discussions on Debian's lists
than this one.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.


Let me rephrase this. What else can a universal operating system do for
climate neutrality?


Was hoping for some external input. To mind come:
 * monitoring systems (I know of a provider of professional wind
turbine monitoring systems that reside on the wind turbines and run Debian)
 * billing systems for community-organised shared resources

I presume that most software tools that ship with inverters, power walls
etc are just accessible via some web interface. Nothing too much for us
to do, I presume. But whenever there is an Open API etc we could
possible point to such a Debian-compatibility.

Cheers,

Steffen

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:01:04AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
> > neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

> please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
> on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
> universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
> it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

> You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
> OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
> your activism.

I guess our users stop being a priority when they die by the millions due to
the disruption of our climate.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:01:04AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
> > neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?
> 
> please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
> on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
> universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
> it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.
> 
> You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
> OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
> your activism.
> 
Thank you for posting this.  I did not respond to the initial message
because it was difficult for me to do so constructively.  You have
captured the essence of how I feel about this.  Let's remain focused on
the main goal.

Regards,

-Roberto
-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Steffen Möller]

On 13.04.22 17:01, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You have a point. And I can agree that Debian should not do anything
that is not part of being an universal operating system.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.


Let me rephrase this. What else can a universal operating system do for
climate neutrality?

Steffen

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Sandro Tosi]

> While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
> neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

Thanks,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

Re: several questions /Debian Source Code build 11.3/related to Unrestricted Encryption Source Code Notification Commodity

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:44:02PM +0300, Екатерина Лапшина wrote:
> Good afternoon!
> 
> 

Good afternoon, Ekaterina
> 
> We are planning to use Debian Source Code build 11.3 (the “Software”) in
> Russia and have several questions related to Unrestricted Encryption Source
> Code Notification Commodity (
> https://www.debian.org/legal/notificationforarchive, “Notification”) and
> export restrictions of the US Export Control Act ("EAR").
> 
> 

Only source code: no binaries? The source code requirement is an old one - see
below - and effectively disappeared a long time ago.

This all dates initiallly from 200/2001 - Ben Collins was the Debian Project
Leader then.

The legal opinion then from US lawyers is at 
https://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain.en.html.

At one point, we maintained cryptographic software in a separate "non-US" 
archive. That's not been necessary for approximately 15 or 20 years.

> 
> In your Notification you mention that Debian is free access code
> (accordingly we suppose that it can be EAR99 or Not subject to EAR). At the
> same time you refer to the exception TSU specified in Part 740.13 EAR
> (however, paragraph e(1) is missing in the text we saw
> https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-740/section-740.13).
> You also refer to the cryptography functionality thank can trigger
> exception ENC as well
> 

The review by the NSA went long ago. Debian has treated the code as being
exportable worldwide but has not normally accepted new official mirrors in 
countries subject to US sanctions like Iran, Syria or Cuba.

I'm unaware of Russian law at the moment: it is possible that import and
use in Russia would be legitimate under Russian law.
> 
> 
> Accordingly we would like to know whether:
> 
> (1)   the Software can be freely distributed, including in Russia, due to
> being EAR99 or Not subject to EAR
>

This appears to be the case, at least de facto.

> (2)   the Software is subject to other ECCN (please specify, which one) and
> can be distributed only subject to exceptions (TSU, ENC or other - please
> specify)
> 

Various people have asked about ECCN over the years: it seems that our 
software is acceptable for US export and import. I am NOT a registered lawyer
- none of this should be taken as legal advice.
> 
> 
> Thank you

With every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater

several questions /Debian Source Code build 11.3/related to Unrestricted Encryption Source Code Notification Commodity

[Екатерина Лапшина]

Good afternoon!



We are planning to use Debian Source Code build 11.3 (the “Software”) in
Russia and have several questions related to Unrestricted Encryption Source
Code Notification Commodity (
https://www.debian.org/legal/notificationforarchive, “Notification”) and
export restrictions of the US Export Control Act ("EAR").



In your Notification you mention that Debian is free access code
(accordingly we suppose that it can be EAR99 or Not subject to EAR). At the
same time you refer to the exception TSU specified in Part 740.13 EAR
(however, paragraph e(1) is missing in the text we saw
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-740/section-740.13).
You also refer to the cryptography functionality thank can trigger
exception ENC as well



Accordingly we would like to know whether:

(1)   the Software can be freely distributed, including in Russia, due to
being EAR99 or Not subject to EAR

(2)   the Software is subject to other ECCN (please specify, which one) and
can be distributed only subject to exceptions (TSU, ENC or other - please
specify)



Thank you

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Steffen Möller]

The idea is good.

There is Debian as an organisation that could immediately shift activity
towards renewable resources. There are carbon neutral compute centers.
And there is something close to carbon neutral travel if investing extra
money in these tree planing institutions.

An interesting reference is IKEA
(https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2021/ikea-renewable-energy/718146),
producing more solar energy than it uses.

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

Steffen

Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:35:27PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Hi
> 
> it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
> destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
> and reduce our carbon emissions.
> 
> I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear
> the only way this could happen is via a general resolution amending
> the constitution for climate goals, so it becomes binding.

I do have a problem with your approach of demanding strong action.

Combined with your refusal to apply it where it might not be convenient
for you.

Your principles do not matter much when you are demanding something from 
other people.

Your principles do matter when they are inconvenient for YOU.

>...
> # Actions
>...
> Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,
> I think 2035 or 2040 are commonly referenced.

If your goal is only carbon neutrality in 2035 or 2040,
there is no discussion required from us before 2030.

If your roadmap should already include short-term reductions,
an obvious low-hanging fruit will be not to cause hundreds of
people from all over the world to fly to India in 2023.

>...
> # Things out of our control
> 
> I think individual travel to DebConf and similar events is somewhat
> out of our control, as is the personal behavior of individual
> submitters.

Debian paying for plane travel is 100% inside the control of Debian.
A policy that Debian no longer pays for plane travel would be an
obvious first step.

Abolishing DebConf bursaries for plane travel would not even require
a general resolution.

How to hold conferences is also completely inside the control of Debian.

It would not even require a general resolution for the DebConf team to 
decide that DebConf is no longer held in-person to reduce our carbon 
emissions.

A "binding general resolution amending the constitution for climate 
goals" implies abolishing support by Debian for in-person conferences.[1]
Otherwise it would be like the deplorable corporate greenwashing 
practices by deplorable managers who are claiming to support climate 
goals while refusing to take any action that might reduce their profits.

cu
Adrian

[1] An exemption for already confirmed DebConfs might be appropriate.