Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main, why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform says that We need a leader who will champion our cause. What cause is this an example of you championing? I hope this isn't a breach of David Harris's proposed conduct guidelines for the voting period, but I'll just note that my response has in fact been more than that, has been since before you posted the above, and the logs of #211765 indicate that now. http://bugs.debian.org/211765 -- G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:35:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main, why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform says that We need a leader who will champion our cause. What cause is this an example of you championing? I hope this isn't a breach of David Harris's proposed conduct guidelines for the voting period, but I'll just note that my response has in fact been more than that, has been since before you posted the above, and the logs of #211765 indicate that now. http://bugs.debian.org/211765 -- G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. I think there were some interesting points from both sides there (not that I agree with all of them), if you read them instead of ploughing them. However, your message is just a self-justifying rant. If you really think: My advice is Less Crap and More Code! ...then please practise what you preach. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-26 18:01:41 + Dale C. Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. I think there were some interesting points from both sides there (not that I agree with all of them), if you read them instead of ploughing them. However, your message is just a self-justifying rant. If you really think: My advice is Less Crap and More Code! ...then please practise what you preach. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just plain stupid. There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our definition of free, which the rest of the world considers free enough. The fact that we can legally distribute this code makes that distribution completely OK by the rest of the software community not committed to software freedom as Debian defines it. We provide examples of the right way to build Debian packages in many different places, although I find the existing code base to be full of both good and bad examples, our documentation is mostly self consistant. Negative examples tend to improve our understanding faster than positive ones. Being able to point to packages with poor licensing conditions has always been helpful when trying to determine what is wrong with some other license. In any case, as one who was here before during and after the the adoption of the Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines, I view these documents as the definition of what Debian is and what it stands for, and I find all attempts to modify these documents as attempts to modify Debian. I don't have much time to devote to Debian these days, but that doesn't mean that I don't still find it very important. The Contract and Guidelines were written specifically to block political modification of the goals and principles of Debian. If Debian is to survive, this attempt to modify our principles must fail. My advice is Less Crap and More Code! Waiting is, Dwarf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote: There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our definition of free, which the rest of the world considers free enough. Uhm, 'the rest of the world' considers binary-only drivers 'free enough'? The fact that we can legally distribute this code makes that distribution completely OK by the rest of the software community not committed to software freedom as Debian defines it. I don't think RedHat or SuSE ship any significant package from non-free in their default distribution, apart from the binary-only drivers of course. We provide examples of the right way to build Debian packages in many different places, although I find the existing code base to be full of both good and bad examples, our documentation is mostly self consistant. What does this have to do with the non-free debate? Negative examples tend to improve our understanding faster than positive ones. Being able to point to packages with poor licensing conditions has always been helpful when trying to determine what is wrong with some other license. Why would pointing to packages at non-free.org be worse in this regard? I'd say it would be even better, as they are clearly marked as having a poor license. I don't have much time to devote to Debian these days, but that doesn't mean that I don't still find it very important. Yeah, tuning into this discussion is the best you can do with your little time in order to help Debian! The Contract and Guidelines were written specifically to block political modification of the goals and principles of Debian. If Debian is to survive, this attempt to modify our principles must fail. When the Guidelines were written, you needed non-free software to actually upload a package into the archive, to the best of my knowledge. Non-free software was not a commodity back then, it was very hard to get any work done without it I guess. These times have changed. Today, the 'almost-free' packages in non-free are mostly insignificant for most users. In contrast, by far the most important ones are the binary-only drivers nowadays. non-free has changed. I don't see why Debian should not reevaluate its support. Well, we did, and we agreed to support non-free for the time being, so I don't understand why you're making such a fuss about it. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
I have just plowed through a large wad of messages on this thread, and the only thing I have to say is that every everything I have read is self justification or off topic crap. In principle I agree with Craig. The arguments over non-free are just plain stupid. There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our definition of free, which the rest of the world considers free enough. The fact that we can legally distribute this code makes that distribution completely OK by the rest of the software community not committed to software freedom as Debian defines it. We provide examples of the right way to build Debian packages in many different places, although I find the existing code base to be full of both good and bad examples, our documentation is mostly self consistant. Negative examples tend to improve our understanding faster than positive ones. Being able to point to packages with poor licensing conditions has always been helpful when trying to determine what is wrong with some other license. In any case, as one who was here before during and after the the adoption of the Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines, I view these documents as the definition of what Debian is and what it stands for, and I find all attempts to modify these documents as attempts to modify Debian. I don't have much time to devote to Debian these days, but that doesn't mean that I don't still find it very important. The Contract and Guidelines were written specifically to block political modification of the goals and principles of Debian. If Debian is to survive, this attempt to modify our principles must fail. My advice is Less Crap and More Code! Waiting is, Dwarf
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 07:01:41PM +0100, Dale C. Scheetz wrote: There is no contradiction between declaring Debian to be totally about Free Software, and the maintaining of a section called non-free. The non-free packages are examples of software that fails to meet our definition of free, which the rest of the world considers free enough. Uhm, 'the rest of the world' considers binary-only drivers 'free enough'? The fact that we can legally distribute this code makes that distribution completely OK by the rest of the software community not committed to software freedom as Debian defines it. I don't think RedHat or SuSE ship any significant package from non-free in their default distribution, apart from the binary-only drivers of course. We provide examples of the right way to build Debian packages in many different places, although I find the existing code base to be full of both good and bad examples, our documentation is mostly self consistant. What does this have to do with the non-free debate? Negative examples tend to improve our understanding faster than positive ones. Being able to point to packages with poor licensing conditions has always been helpful when trying to determine what is wrong with some other license. Why would pointing to packages at non-free.org be worse in this regard? I'd say it would be even better, as they are clearly marked as having a poor license. I don't have much time to devote to Debian these days, but that doesn't mean that I don't still find it very important. Yeah, tuning into this discussion is the best you can do with your little time in order to help Debian! The Contract and Guidelines were written specifically to block political modification of the goals and principles of Debian. If Debian is to survive, this attempt to modify our principles must fail. When the Guidelines were written, you needed non-free software to actually upload a package into the archive, to the best of my knowledge. Non-free software was not a commodity back then, it was very hard to get any work done without it I guess. These times have changed. Today, the 'almost-free' packages in non-free are mostly insignificant for most users. In contrast, by far the most important ones are the binary-only drivers nowadays. non-free has changed. I don't see why Debian should not reevaluate its support. Well, we did, and we agreed to support non-free for the time being, so I don't understand why you're making such a fuss about it. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100 Sender: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are not able to understand what Free software means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you for choosing one of them. If you cant understand what means 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean time too. But because I allways find it very intresting when one says to me that you dont understand what free software means I would like to hear it from you :) Maybe you could enlighten me :) Please tell to me what means free software :) I am like a big EAR :) OR Big non flaming EYE :)) -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we need GNU FDL. # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 1 year and 99 days old. Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. -- This is why I think it is unfortunate, but too late, that the section was called 'non-free' and not 'read-the-licence'. Once you have read the DFSG you, as a user, or distributor, of Debian packages know what you can do with packages in main or contrib. A package being in non-free simply means that you have to read the licence, and this is exactly what the authors of GFDL documents want you to do. They chose that particular licence because they want the reader to be aware that there are particularly privileged sections of the documentation - thus drawing the readers attention to them. The problem is that there are people who think that the section should be called 'evil' and that when a package is moved to non-free it is a judgement of its moral quality - but it is more of an indicator that it requires special treatment - and this is requested by the author - not imposed by Debian. Have you read the side of a RedHat boxed set ? I dont have one handy but it says words to the effect of 'The software in this box is written by lots of different people and is licenced under lots of different licences - to find out more read the individual licences' - in other words it is all in 'read-the-licence'. To quit using Debian because Debian tries harder than any other distribution to be clear about licencing would be counter productive. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600 From: Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. =20 OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! =20 Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. Well, I choose independence and freedom, and because of that I say No to lick it up recommendatios. Can we add that to the fortune's database? Did you ask from Caesar that could you site him? -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Mikko Moilanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you cant understand what means 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean time too. Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users are not served by non-free's existence on the Debian servers. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:35:47 +0100 Sender: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are not able to understand what Free software means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you for choosing one of them. If you cant understand what means 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean time too. But because I allways find it very intresting when one says to me that you dont understand what free software means I would like to hear it from you :) Maybe you could enlighten me :) Please tell to me what means free software :) I am like a big EAR :) OR Big non flaming EYE :)) -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:32:59 -0600 From: Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. =20 OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! =20 Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. Well, I choose independence and freedom, and because of that I say No to lick it up recommendatios. Can we add that to the fortune's database? Did you ask from Caesar that could you site him? -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Mikko Moilanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you cant understand what means 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software then I will recommend that you think about some philosophy in the mean time too. Of course. And I believe that the long-term interests of our users are not served by non-free's existence on the Debian servers. Thomas
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] You may (or may not) be interested in: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Well, I am interested about subject and so I will read available information. Conversation about subject is over from me untill I have catched up. -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or close to being free it was at the time. Well, for some values of actually free, anyway. So, do you think this is a problem? Is it a violation of the social contract to not have an immediate death to anything we decide is or might be non-free policy? If it is a problem, as a DPL candidate, shouldn't you be doing something about solving it, rather than just listing evidence of something that's already well known? If you don't think it's a problem, was there any point to your mail that wouldn't've been summed up with HAHA! aj's wrong!! What a loooser!? If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main, why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform says that We need a leader who will champion our cause. What cause is this an example of you championing? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500 From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, for some values of actually free, anyway. Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we need GNU FDL. # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 1 year and 99 days old. Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit : Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you for choosing one of them. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. ...which is why you felt compelled to quote me swearing in IRC[1], when my poor defenseless victim was an RC bug[2], right? :) Take heart, for you have shamed me -- I should indeed be nicer to impersonal, inanimate abstractions. :) Given that reproach, I should probably also refrain from investing much emotional vigor in resolving RC bugs -- I'm sure you'd appreciate that. :) Anyway, to give this message some serious content, I'll note that I share your relative evaluation of the offensiveness of these practices. As I said in my platform: [...]it's too hard for those who are clueless to get clues, and in the absence of proper procedural remedies for dissatisfied people, arguments become personalized. That, in turn, puts people on the defensive (sometimes for themselves, sometimes on behalf of others), and recriminations spiral out of control.[3] It might be worth noting that there *isn't* a plank in my platform about swearing. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00719.html [2] Nope, not the submitter, the bug itself. I didn't remember at the time who filed it, and I don't remember now. It might've even been me. [3] http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/campaign/2004/platform.xhtml#s2p1 -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. (Funny how our release logic applies to other things :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. It's considered to be *very* offensive where I live, and is certainly not acceptable in everyday conversation. Just because you consider it to be nothing particularly offensive does not mean that others feel the same way. For the record, I was disgusted by your post. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and rationally. - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFAUgpQVcFcaSW/uEgRAqNiAJ9D4ODAFG7o+5gWwZNC1cKR9L2XwwCgikOV /WJtJ75Bx1ioCF4E3xAptmI= =DIJt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did* intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I deserved to have you treat me with contempt, and that you chose the words you did specifically to indicate contempt and to cause offense. You can't now plead that this wasn't your intention after all. It's a style of speech you reserve only for showing contempt, and the mailing list policy prohibits swearing, in explicit terms. what is actually offensive, on the other hand, is stupidity. The mailing list policy does not prohibit stupidity. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. Can we add that to the fortune's database? -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or close to being free it was at the time. Well, for some values of actually free, anyway. # #174456: celestia: Please clarify copyright license of textures/image data Package: celestia; Severity: serious; Reported by: Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pena [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 1 year and 75 days old. # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 1 year and 99 days old. # #193787: gcc-3.2-doc,gcc-3.3-doc,cpp-3.2-doc,cpp-3.3-doc,g77-3.2-doc,g77-3.3-doc: GCC documentation is non-free Packages: gcc-3.2-doc, gcc-3.3-doc, cpp-3.2-doc, cpp-3.3-doc, g77-3.2-doc, g77-3.3-doc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 298 days old. # #199810: libnss-ldap: Includes non-free documentation (RFC) Package: libnss-ldap; Severity: serious; Reported by: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 2 years and 343 days old. # #23: cpp: contains non-free manpages Package: cpp; Severity: serious; Reported by: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 251 days old. # #207549: doc-debian: copyright status of some documents unclear Package: doc-debian; Severity: serious; Reported by: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 197 days old. # #207932: emacs21: Includes non-free documents Package: emacs21; Severity: serious; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 194 days old. # #211640: ssh: contains unlicensed Internet-Draft in /usr/share/doc/ssh/RFC.gz Package: ssh; Severity: serious; Reported by: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 174 days old. # #211765: xfree86: material under non-free licenses in XFree86 Package: xfree86; Severity: serious; Reported by: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: help, sarge-ignore, upstream; 174 days old. # #212085: Build-dependencies cannot be satisfied in unstable Package: gcc-3.0; Severity: serious; Reported by: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore, upstream, wontfix; 172 days old. # #212522: gdb package contains non-free GNU FDL documentation Package: gdb; Severity: serious; Reported by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode); Tags: sarge-ignore; 170 days old. # #214623: Non-free logo included in main Package: imagemagick; Severity: serious; Reported by: paul cannon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 156 days old. # #225254: mldonkey-server: contains RFC in /usr/share/doc/mldonkey-server/docs Package: mldonkey-server; Severity: serious; Reported by: Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge-ignore; 75 days old. # #236974: FDL documentation Package: libneon24-doc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:28:46AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:43:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or close to being free it was at the time. Well, for some values of actually free, anyway. So, do you think this is a problem? Is it a violation of the social contract to not have an immediate death to anything we decide is or might be non-free policy? If it is a problem, as a DPL candidate, shouldn't you be doing something about solving it, rather than just listing evidence of something that's already well known? If you don't think it's a problem, was there any point to your mail that wouldn't've been summed up with HAHA! aj's wrong!! What a loooser!? If you're at all concerned about the issue of non-free software in main, why has your response to Bug#211765 been little more than tagging the bug help, and hoping someone else manages to fix it for you? Your platform says that We need a leader who will champion our cause. What cause is this an example of you championing? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:28:46 -0500 From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, for some values of actually free, anyway. Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we need GNU FDL. # #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free Package: glibc; Severity: serious; Reported by: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tags: sarge, sarge-ignore, sid, woody; 1 year and 99 days old. Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. -- Internationale persona non grata http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/moilami1
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Le ven 12/03/2004 à 08:19, Mikko Moilanen a écrit : Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. So what? If you are not able to understand what Free software means, maybe you don't want to use Debian. There are plenty non-free operating systems out there, no one here will blame you for choosing one of them. -- .''`. 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: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. ...which is why you felt compelled to quote me swearing in IRC[1], when my poor defenseless victim was an RC bug[2], right? :) Take heart, for you have shamed me -- I should indeed be nicer to impersonal, inanimate abstractions. :) Given that reproach, I should probably also refrain from investing much emotional vigor in resolving RC bugs -- I'm sure you'd appreciate that. :) Anyway, to give this message some serious content, I'll note that I share your relative evaluation of the offensiveness of these practices. As I said in my platform: [...]it's too hard for those who are clueless to get clues, and in the absence of proper procedural remedies for dissatisfied people, arguments become personalized. That, in turn, puts people on the defensive (sometimes for themselves, sometimes on behalf of others), and recriminations spiral out of control.[3] It might be worth noting that there *isn't* a plank in my platform about swearing. [1] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00719.html [2] Nope, not the submitter, the bug itself. I didn't remember at the time who filed it, and I don't remember now. It might've even been me. [3] http://people.debian.org/~branden/dpl/campaign/2004/platform.xhtml#s2p1 -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Is it too much if somebody says Please let others know that I did wrote this manual? Also, please don't let them change my personal opinions about X, Y and Z.? Yes, it is too much and that's why we need GNU FDL. [...] Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. If A - B. You may (or may not) be interested in: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | kernel panic -- causal failure [EMAIL PROTECTED] | universe will now reboot http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. (Funny how our release logic applies to other things :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. It's considered to be *very* offensive where I live, and is certainly not acceptable in everyday conversation. Just because you consider it to be nothing particularly offensive does not mean that others feel the same way. For the record, I was disgusted by your post. If you have a point to make, make it calmly and rationally. - -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFAUgpQVcFcaSW/uEgRAqNiAJ9D4ODAFG7o+5gWwZNC1cKR9L2XwwCgikOV /WJtJ75Bx1ioCF4E3xAptmI= =DIJt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. Except that you made it perfectly clear that in this case you *did* intend the offense. In fact, you said that something I did meant I deserved to have you treat me with contempt, and that you chose the words you did specifically to indicate contempt and to cause offense. You can't now plead that this wasn't your intention after all. It's a style of speech you reserve only for showing contempt, and the mailing list policy prohibits swearing, in explicit terms. what is actually offensive, on the other hand, is stupidity. The mailing list policy does not prohibit stupidity. Thomas
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:20:40PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +0200, Mikko Moilanen wrote: Declare it as nonfree and I will quit immediatly using Debian, and I will remove Debian from my relatives and friends too. OH MY GOD!! NOO!!!1! Ahem. We grew out of the ..., or I quite! argumentation a few years ago in Debian. dist-upgrade your mental pathways, or get no support. Can we add that to the fortune's database? -- Chad Walstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:33:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic spitefulness on this list. No, that's not what I said. You are misrepresenting me, which is, well, dishonest. Shame on you. no, it's not a misrepresentation at all. misrepresentation is the kind of thing you and Goerzen do where you outright lie and say that somebody said something exactly opposite to what they actually said. You are welcome to criticize if you like, but your tone and your language is not acceptible. you seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious, so here is your hypocrisy, spelt out in terms simple enough even for you: you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to complain about your pedantic idiocy. you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to like (swearing) to the status of Universal Truth, above something that I don't like (pedantic idiocy) when in reality, they are both just subjective opinions. Got it? I have not said that you cannot make any complaint, I have said that you must couch such a complaint by using decent and acceptible tones. my point precisely. it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. if you want to argue with what i'm saying then argue over the content, don't make some stupid pedantic fight over word choices. it's just another boring variant of the spelling-flame. Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something bad--does not justify your use of language. i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not. and the more you try to tell me i do not have the right to use my language as i see fit, the more i will fucking insist on my fucking right to say whatever the fuck i want to say, using whatever fucking words i choose. even on general principles, censoring fascists like you have to be opposed every step of the way. craig PS: as for respect, i reserve that for people i actually feel respect for. you disqualified yourself years ago. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swearing on debian lists [Was: Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something bad--does not justify your use of language. i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not. and the more you try to tell me i do not have the right to use my language as i see fit, the more i will fucking insist on my fucking right to say whatever the fuck i want to say, using whatever fucking words i choose. Actually you will not. You may have missed the Debian lists code of conduct, which is available at [1]. I'll quote a bit of it to you now: * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal. as well as: * Try not to flame; it is not polite. Pasc [1]: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- Pascal Hakim+61 4 0341 1672 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swearing on debian lists [Was: Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:35:43PM +1100, Pascal Hakim wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something bad--does not justify your use of language. i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not. and the more you try to tell me i do not have the right to use my language as i see fit, the more i will fucking insist on my fucking right to say whatever the fuck i want to say, using whatever fucking words i choose. Actually you will not. wrong. i will say what i please when i please. You may have missed the Debian lists code of conduct, which is available at [1]. I'll quote a bit of it to you now: * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal. it's not that simple. your definition of foul? or mine? or someone else's? what kind of jurisdiction? bible belt america? fundamentalist iran? modern secular? in short: don't be ridiculuous. this is the internet, not a small-town kinder-garten. you can't expect your parochial standards to be universal. as well as: * Try not to flame; it is not polite. being stupid in public isn't polite, either, but it doesn't stop most people. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it. I have no idea what you mean by please correct it. Do you mean Thankyou for pointing this out, now and in the future? My complaint was specifically that you (and Sven, partially) had given up on what I see as the crucial compromise behind section five of the SC. As should be clear by now, I never made that compromise in the first place. I don't think mangling language for marketing purposes, or agreeing not to talk about things is a good idea. Rather, it was an explanation of a mistake that I believe you made, and that if someone with the awareness and visibility as yourself makes that mistake so frequently and so persistently, ..then it's likely other people are making the same mistake, and there's no point making it about me, personally. If you really think it's important for me to stop making this mistake, then you need to convince me that is a mistake -- and the only thing that your thread did was convince me that you're a crank who isn't worth taking seriously. It therefore was necessarily about whether someone with your visibility had gotten it wrong--as I still believe you have-- There are two possible claims you could be making. One is that I've broken a promise I made in the past, and am therefore a fundamentally dishonest person. Maybe this could be weakened by assuming that I wasn't aware of the importance, and simply forgot I'd made the commitment in the first place, but either way, it leaves it as a flaw in me. The other is that I never made the promise in the first place, but was expected to do so by the rest of the project. That'd mean that the new-maintainer process at the time wasn't appropriately strict, which is entirely plausible. But since I am a member of the project now, you'll need to either point to some historical documentation that makes it clear that this is a promise every member of Debian needed to have made, or you'll need to convince people that it's an important one to make now whether it was meant to be made in the past or not. I don't believe you'll find any indication that I did make the promise your claiming about. I also don't think you'll find any explicit indication that such a promise was ever expected, and I'm doubtful you'll find the idea even considered outside of arguments that non-free should be dropped. I could be wrong on both counts, of course. You certainly haven't made any convincing arguments about why it's a good thing to be unable to say Debian includes a non-free component or similar remarks. And you sure seem a lot more interested in using that as an excuse to drop non-free, than explaining why it's a good compromise and convincing people that it's the thing to do: as a necessary link in an argument that paragraph five has ceased to be a compromise between two different parties, and has become the slogan of only one party, which no longer feels bound to the other half of the compromise. There's a few examples which are entirely plausible examples of a breakdown in the split between main and non-free. One occurred when we moved contrib/ and non-free/ under the release codename on the ftp site during hamm -- that made it very difficult to find terms to talk about main that emphasise how much more fundamental it is than non-free or contrib. Last time we had this debate, I thought it'd be a good idea to make it clear that those sections were add-ons, by putting them in a subdirectory, and having other possible add-on collections (such as backports) in with them. Unfortunately, I don't think that makes sense anymore (what happens when you've got non-free backports?), and I can't see any other way of emphasising the difference between main and contrib/non-free, and going back to the way we were pre-hamm will simply make non-free and contrib packages unusable. Another problem is when packages in main refer to packages outside non-free -- this tends to upset people. We've patched dselect in the past to fix this (in particular by making it ignore suggestions for unavailable packages), and we should probably patch apt and other tools if it comes up again. Working out whether we want to distribute non-free software _at all_ is also a valid question. There are costs to maintaining it, and if it's not maintained well, it probably does detract from the overall experience of using Debian more than if it weren't provided at all. I don't think that's the case, but it's a valid question, that affects real users. The other recent example of continuing to distribute non-free documentation after having come to the consensus that there's no good justification for different rules for programs and documentation can also be claimed to be worrisome from
Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. [...] Acutally, it seems common that debian list subscribers personalise discussions. Your email is another example. I'm sure I read that using you a lot on-list means you should redraft before sending, or send it off-list. Sadly, I can't find that article now. I disagree with some people's views, but I usually don't know those people and will try to approach meeting them with an open mind. There are a few exceptions who I feel are too aggressive, though. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up. Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek. If someone steps up and publically proposes something that has, among other things[1], consequences that are negative towards someone else, they should expect to hear objections, and that includes the hostile ones as well. It would be downright ludicrous to expect that everyone will be treading lightly in such a setting.[2] Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's debatable, but the let's make everything better for the meek program[3] just isn't relevant to it. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. [1] or not, regardless [2] heck, if we went around passing such changes without stirring any trouble, what kind of lame herd of cats would we be? ;) [3] regardless of whether such a program is worthwhile (I think it is) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying and outrageously abusive language. No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. At least it means you have to concentrate on the topic and play the ball, not the man, which some have trouble with. Sure, but sometimes to do that you have to refer to specific instances as examples to get a grip on what you're talking about. Singling out individuals in that way certainly can cross the line into being needlessly offensive, but it certainly seems reasonable to do it occassionally. (And anyway, the you from my mail quoted above is an impersonal you, synonymous with one, so isn't on point for your complaint.) They're indistinguishable [...] Uh, no they're not. It's possible to mistake one for the other, sure, but that's a long way from indistinguishable. Too much hyperbole can be a bad thing too. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
hi ted, craig, On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: Craig, snip Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. snip and please add me to that list. i would never dream of controlling what you could or could not say or your freedom of self expression, but please ask yourself: just because you have the right to say something, does that necessarily mean you should, and to the extent that you have? does it actually serve a constructive purpose? debian-* is a community of many people with many different sensibilities, cultures, and values; you would be a kind person if you were to take that into account before spouting off like that. sean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested in doing anything about that, so why should anyone else be interested in addressing your concerns? I think you have a point there. There's a difference between being abrasive, belligerent, obnoxious, and incoherent and being coherently and pointedly slanderous -- and the latter is far more noxious. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested in doing anything about that, so why should anyone else be interested in addressing your concerns? I think you have a point there. There's a difference between being abrasive, belligerent, obnoxious, and incoherent and being coherently and pointedly slanderous -- and the latter is far more noxious. True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. However, I don't see the difference as being all that significant. Back in my old FidoNet days, the Golden Rule of FidoNet went basically like this: Thou shalt not be excessively annoying, and thou shalt not be excessively easily annoyed. I think that applies perfectly to Debian. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to complain about your pedantic idiocy. Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic. But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot. It is not allowed to use swearing. I'm glad you understand so well. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it. I have no idea what you mean by please correct it. Do you mean Thankyou for pointing this out, now and in the future? Yes; I don't deliberately try to miss a point, nor do I try to trim deceptively. I trim because I quote only what I address, and if there is something you think I should address, and I didn't, then it wasn't malicious, and if you make a direct request, then I'm happy to oblige. As should be clear by now, I never made that compromise in the first place. I don't think mangling language for marketing purposes, or agreeing not to talk about things is a good idea. See? It's broken down. :) In any event, I'd be interested in exactly how *you'd* spell out the terms of that particular clause. What's allowed, and what's not, exactly? At the moment, the rule might as well be Anything that's found offensive by someone who dislikes non-free has to be rephrased. You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*. And people are confused about it, especially when you contradict it. The compromise is you can include non-free on the server, but it won't be part of Debian. When you say oh, but it *is* part of Debian! then you have said that, no matter what the SC says is and is not Debian, your opinion varies. You can express it all you want, that's fine. But the fact that you are so sure that Debian *does* include non-free, is a sure indication to me that the you can include it, but it's not Debian compromise has broken down. Because, whatever the SC says, so many people think it is part of Debian, including high-visibility Debian developers, that the compromise you can include it but it's not part of Debian has failed. You can say whatever you like, it's not what you say that is the problem. It's the concept which you wish to express, that it's mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of Debian, it is that *concept* which is inimical to the SC, which explicitly says, as clearly as it can, that non-free is not part of Debian. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of pedantic frothing-at-the-mouth by wowser-imitations scoring cheap points whining about the swearing. Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop. I say it's not unacceptable, and it doesn't necessarily need to stop. It's enough that you guys want to kick out non-free, don't kick out swearing, too :) I see. The mailing list policy prohibits swearing, does it not? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. and at least one responded that, like me, he found the kind of idiocy i was complaining about to be far more offensive. you are trying to make an absolute out of a subjective preference. i'm not buying it. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. i find it extremely surprising that anyone actually gives a damn about it (oops! am i allowed to say damn here? what about WTF or STFU - they didn't seem to cause any stir...perhaps it is allowed to abbreviate fuck but not to actually type it? if so, that is moronic). what is actually offensive, on the other hand, is stupidity. idiocy, especially of the trivial pedantic variety that is so common on debian lists, is far more offensive than any single word could ever possibly be. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. this will happen regardless of whether i choose to use words like fuck or not. some people like sticking their heads in the sand and prefer comfortably stupid illusions. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- this vote is missing a None of the above option. Typically, that options is present in DPL election ballots (since it is required by the constitution). Non election GR ballots have Further Discussion, also mandated by the constitution. Adding any other option to the ballot should go through the normal process; since a) I think it is pointless, voting further discussion ahead of either proposition means that non of the proposals are acceptable. b) I think it would be an abuse of power for me to just tack the option on wearing the secretaries hat. this is significant because it makes it impossible to put NOTA ahead of Further Discussion. If you wanted a non of the above option, you needed to propose such an amendment, and get sponsors; the constitution is pretty clear about required ballot options. NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that has a Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above option (aka the STFU about it option). You should, then, propose the constitutional amendment GR, and find sponsors. manoj -- If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all. Ronald Reagan Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 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 votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option. On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet it's there on the ballot. So? Maybe it would be clearer if you prefixed that with Allow for. Even more if you consider that this is a part of a decision making process. Futher Discussion allows for further discussion before any binding decisions are made. Does it make sense to talk about allowing people to shut up? Does it make more sense to talk about allowing people to shut up before decisions are made? are you fucking stupid? is everyone in debian fucking stupid? do you all have to squabble over the tiniest most pedantically trivial things? for fuck's sake, get a grip - argue all you like over REAL things, pick the shit out of REAL holes in people's arguments, but don't fucking waste time over stupid bullshit like this. I could say the same about your original nit pick about the ballot. the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up about this subject. that's it. that's all. nothing else. no more can be read into it. and, surprisingly, it will not be enforced by debian storm-troopers or black helicopters. Could you please take your own advice? i really don't know how much simpler i can put it than that. if even that is beyond you, then there is no point in trying again. and just in case you miss the point of this message: some of us are sick to death of this topic. So what? it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it. that's so what. And you think introducing posts in the thread with vituperative language is likely to be conducive to having people shut up? My. are you sane? you seem to make a habit of going off on weird non-sequitir tangents that appear to have no relationship to reality or to anything that has gone before. Asking for a shut up about is option on all ballots is not going off on a tangent? manoj -- Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude. Spock, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 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: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. However, I don't see the difference as being all that significant. You mean, like Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software should probably have read Debian's OS Will Remain 100% Free Software? The problem with ambiguity is that while some people are certain it means one thing, other people are certain it means something else. Being specific tends to help -- especially when offering criticism. That's why we ask for specific package names and versions on bug reports. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive way of having a conversation. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. And that's utterly inappropriate and unnecessary. If you want to identify a particular theory and criticise it, do so. English is pretty expressive, and can easily handle that, eg by saying Why saying `Debian includes non-free' is wrong, even when talking about the Debian Project. It's not only less likely to annoy me (who in this case was the person Thomas needed to convince), it's also clearer (I've made a lot of arguments on this list recently), and will remain an accurate and comprehensible summary even if Thomas is successful in persuading me of his viewpoint. Thou shalt not be excessively annoying, and thou shalt not be excessively easily annoyed. So, I can only assume from this that you think I'm excessively easily annoyed. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. Sorry, that wasn't ambiguous, so much as just plain wrong. Making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious and easier to avoid was how it should've read. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot. Indeed, it's almost a tradition... -Miles -- I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task. --Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Well, you have it within your power to do what Craig asks, which he indicates will stop him from swearing. Do you find those requests -- ie, to talk about real issues, not pedantic non-events -- unacceptable? He can make whatever requests he wants, but I have been speaking only about real issues. Regardless, no matter what pedantry a person uses, it does not justify his language, which is a separate topic. Part of the problem here is that some of the values that I think are most important here are regarded by you and some others as mere pedantry. This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is not a part of Debian. Party A thought it didn't matter to them what things were called, but was very concerned that non-free software be made available from the Debian servers, and using the Debian infrastructure. Party B was willing to grudgingly accept the distribution of non-free on the Debian servers and the use of Debian's infrastructure to support it, but provided only that it was clearly regarded as not itself being a part of Debian. Now this is a reasonable compromise. It's also reasonable to seek by GR to write a new arrangement. But the existing compromise, with no GR, must recognize that Party A had to give something up just as Party B did. What Party A had to give up was that it had to accept that the term Debian would not properly refer to the non-free stuff, which was not a part of Debian. I think that Party B made the far more serious concession here, and I find it repugnant that the current Party A people would like to take away even the tiny concession about language which they made. Appropriate language may not matter to you; it obviously doesn't matter to Craig, but it does matter to some of us, and this was exactly what the Party A people agreed to give up in the compromise embedded in section 5 of the SC: that it would be inappropriate and wrong to regard non-free as a part of Debian. Thomas
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested in doing anything about that, so why should anyone else be interested in addressing your concerns? On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:37:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Would you have preferred me to say Why Anthony Towns's Arguments are Incorrect? If so, then I apologize, and I'll use the latter instead. You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your phrasing in the way you suggest does nothing to alleviate that. If you're interested in having a useful debate, argue on the _topic_, not about the person advancing an opposing argument. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in section 5 of the SC has broken down. That compromise allows for non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is not a part of Debian. Again, it only says that in the context of explicit clarification, both by having earlier said that non-free's not a part of the Debian system, and noting that we support its use, and we provide infrastructure for [it]. Who's we? The Debian Project, an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. Party A thought it didn't matter to them what things were called, but was very concerned that non-free software be made available from the Debian servers, and using the Debian infrastructure. Please speak for yourself. I think it's very important that we have logical names for things, and I don't see anything in the social contract that mandates the utterly illogical requirement that the phrase non-free is part of Debian may never be uttered, even when it's clear that's referring to the project, not the distribution. Now this is a reasonable compromise. That might be, but it's certainly not one I've agreed to, nor one that's explicit in the social contract, which I have agreed to. I think that Party B made the far more serious concession here, The grass is always greener, isn't it? and I find it repugnant that the current Party A people would like to take away even the tiny concession about language which they made. The concession you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or close to being free it was at the time. This argument is really a much stronger one in favour of removing non-free docs immediately than about nuances of phrasing, although that too would be a change in the actual agreement. Appropriate language may not matter to you; it obviously doesn't matter to Craig, but it does matter to some of us, If you were to actually use appropriate language, rather than creating a new political correctness that might actually be relevant. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:33:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it's somehow OK for you to complain about my occasional, in-context and grammatically-correct use of certain English words, but it is *NOT OK* for me to make any complaint about the constant petty idiocy and pedantic spitefulness on this list. No, that's not what I said. You are misrepresenting me, which is, well, dishonest. Shame on you. no, it's not a misrepresentation at all. misrepresentation is the kind of thing you and Goerzen do where you outright lie and say that somebody said something exactly opposite to what they actually said. You are welcome to criticize if you like, but your tone and your language is not acceptible. you seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious, so here is your hypocrisy, spelt out in terms simple enough even for you: you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to complain about your pedantic idiocy. you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to like (swearing) to the status of Universal Truth, above something that I don't like (pedantic idiocy) when in reality, they are both just subjective opinions. Got it? I have not said that you cannot make any complaint, I have said that you must couch such a complaint by using decent and acceptible tones. my point precisely. it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. if you want to argue with what i'm saying then argue over the content, don't make some stupid pedantic fight over word choices. it's just another boring variant of the spelling-flame. Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something bad--does not justify your use of language. i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not. and the more you try to tell me i do not have the right to use my language as i see fit, the more i will fucking insist on my fucking right to say whatever the fuck i want to say, using whatever fucking words i choose. even on general principles, censoring fascists like you have to be opposed every step of the way. craig PS: as for respect, i reserve that for people i actually feel respect for. you disqualified yourself years ago.
Swearing on debian lists [Was: Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: Moreover, the fact that you don't like something--even if it's something bad--does not justify your use of language. i'll use any fucking language i like, whether you like it or not. and the more you try to tell me i do not have the right to use my language as i see fit, the more i will fucking insist on my fucking right to say whatever the fuck i want to say, using whatever fucking words i choose. Actually you will not. You may have missed the Debian lists code of conduct, which is available at [1]. I'll quote a bit of it to you now: * Do not use foul language; besides, some people receive the lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal. as well as: * Try not to flame; it is not polite. Pasc [1]: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- Pascal Hakim+61 4 0341 1672
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it. I have no idea what you mean by please correct it. Do you mean Thankyou for pointing this out, now and in the future? My complaint was specifically that you (and Sven, partially) had given up on what I see as the crucial compromise behind section five of the SC. As should be clear by now, I never made that compromise in the first place. I don't think mangling language for marketing purposes, or agreeing not to talk about things is a good idea. Rather, it was an explanation of a mistake that I believe you made, and that if someone with the awareness and visibility as yourself makes that mistake so frequently and so persistently, ..then it's likely other people are making the same mistake, and there's no point making it about me, personally. If you really think it's important for me to stop making this mistake, then you need to convince me that is a mistake -- and the only thing that your thread did was convince me that you're a crank who isn't worth taking seriously. It therefore was necessarily about whether someone with your visibility had gotten it wrong--as I still believe you have-- There are two possible claims you could be making. One is that I've broken a promise I made in the past, and am therefore a fundamentally dishonest person. Maybe this could be weakened by assuming that I wasn't aware of the importance, and simply forgot I'd made the commitment in the first place, but either way, it leaves it as a flaw in me. The other is that I never made the promise in the first place, but was expected to do so by the rest of the project. That'd mean that the new-maintainer process at the time wasn't appropriately strict, which is entirely plausible. But since I am a member of the project now, you'll need to either point to some historical documentation that makes it clear that this is a promise every member of Debian needed to have made, or you'll need to convince people that it's an important one to make now whether it was meant to be made in the past or not. I don't believe you'll find any indication that I did make the promise your claiming about. I also don't think you'll find any explicit indication that such a promise was ever expected, and I'm doubtful you'll find the idea even considered outside of arguments that non-free should be dropped. I could be wrong on both counts, of course. You certainly haven't made any convincing arguments about why it's a good thing to be unable to say Debian includes a non-free component or similar remarks. And you sure seem a lot more interested in using that as an excuse to drop non-free, than explaining why it's a good compromise and convincing people that it's the thing to do: as a necessary link in an argument that paragraph five has ceased to be a compromise between two different parties, and has become the slogan of only one party, which no longer feels bound to the other half of the compromise. There's a few examples which are entirely plausible examples of a breakdown in the split between main and non-free. One occurred when we moved contrib/ and non-free/ under the release codename on the ftp site during hamm -- that made it very difficult to find terms to talk about main that emphasise how much more fundamental it is than non-free or contrib. Last time we had this debate, I thought it'd be a good idea to make it clear that those sections were add-ons, by putting them in a subdirectory, and having other possible add-on collections (such as backports) in with them. Unfortunately, I don't think that makes sense anymore (what happens when you've got non-free backports?), and I can't see any other way of emphasising the difference between main and contrib/non-free, and going back to the way we were pre-hamm will simply make non-free and contrib packages unusable. Another problem is when packages in main refer to packages outside non-free -- this tends to upset people. We've patched dselect in the past to fix this (in particular by making it ignore suggestions for unavailable packages), and we should probably patch apt and other tools if it comes up again. Working out whether we want to distribute non-free software _at all_ is also a valid question. There are costs to maintaining it, and if it's not maintained well, it probably does detract from the overall experience of using Debian more than if it weren't provided at all. I don't think that's the case, but it's a valid question, that affects real users. The other recent example of continuing to distribute non-free documentation after having come to the consensus that there's no good justification for different rules for programs and documentation can also be claimed to be worrisome
Swearing on debian lists, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 08:24:49 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you are also elevating the significance of something YOU claim not to like (swearing) to the status of Universal Truth I suspect far more people dislike swearing. Subscribers are even asked not to use foul language on http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/ after all. It doesn't make me happy to be arguing against free expression, but that's a request from a group I respect (Debian). PS: as for respect, i reserve that for people i actually feel respect for. you disqualified yourself years ago. Please don't grind old axes in this debate. Really wildly OT, IMO. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: Swearing on debian lists [Was: Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: being stupid in public isn't polite, either, but it doesn't stop most people. QED. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it. My complaint was that you're making things personal; changing your phrasing in the way you suggest does nothing to alleviate that. If you're interested in having a useful debate, argue on the _topic_, not about the person advancing an opposing argument. My complaint was specifically that you (and Sven, partially) had given up on what I see as the crucial compromise behind section five of the SC. Some people might oppose the GR pending for different reasons; this is not an argument for the GR. Rather, it was an explanation of a mistake that I believe you made, and that if someone with the awareness and visibility as yourself makes that mistake so frequently and so persistently, then it seems to me that the compromise underlying section five of the SC has broken down. Well, i think aj is well placed to know what is part of the debian archive or not. The fact that the debian archive carries the debian distribution, and some other stuff, well, that you definitively want to ignore. Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion. And now that you are aware of that, please refrain from using voluntarily confusing terms in the future. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion. And now that you are aware of that, please refrain from using voluntarily confusing terms in the future. I still believe that this GR would be useful to reduce the amount of confusion about these naming issues, should it pass. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion. And now that you are aware of that, please refrain from using voluntarily confusing terms in the future. I still believe that this GR would be useful to reduce the amount of confusion about these naming issues, should it pass. This GR ? I guess the most reasonable thing to do would be, once the decision is made on what we want to do with non-free, to propose a second GR to clarify the language accordyingly to the desire of the Debian Project (as in those who cared enough to vote). Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:59:26AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:49AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Also, i will not speak again about this, since it is evident that you asked us, me and aj nominally, to use clearer language on this, and refuse to do the same, playing on the confusion. And now that you are aware of that, please refrain from using voluntarily confusing terms in the future. I still believe that this GR would be useful to reduce the amount of confusion about these naming issues, should it pass. This GR ? I guess the most reasonable thing to do would be, once the decision is made on what we want to do with non-free, to propose a second GR to clarify the language accordyingly to the desire of the Debian Project (as in those who cared enough to vote). What I mean is that should this GR pass, there is no more ambiguity on what is part of Debian* and what is not. Whether we want to clarify the syntactic or semantic or whatever sugar of (the) Debian (project|distribution), is only a cosmetic issue then. But nevertheless worth fixing I guess, it just would not have a big practical impact anymore. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 04:58:02 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. [...] Acutally, it seems common that debian list subscribers personalise discussions. Your email is another example. Whose email was that? Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. (And anyway, the you from my mail quoted above is an impersonal you, synonymous with one, so isn't on point for your complaint.) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 08:37:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I don't know if that's sufficient, but I know that it can do a lot to make the meek feel more welcome, to know that people will stand up. Except that proposing foundational document ammendments is not for the meek. If someone steps up and publically proposes something that has, among other things[1], consequences that are negative towards someone else, they should expect to hear objections, and that includes the hostile ones as well. It would be downright ludicrous to expect that everyone will be treading lightly in such a setting.[2] Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's debatable, but the let's make everything better for the meek program[3] just isn't relevant to it. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. [1] or not, regardless [2] heck, if we went around passing such changes without stirring any trouble, what kind of lame herd of cats would we be? ;) [3] regardless of whether such a program is worthwhile (I think it is)
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. - Ted
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying and outrageously abusive language. No; mostly we just file craig sanders' mail in /dev/null. -- - mdz
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Trying to talk to people without referring to people directly makes things unnecessarily difficult. Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. At least it means you have to concentrate on the topic and play the ball, not the man, which some have trouble with. Sure, but sometimes to do that you have to refer to specific instances as examples to get a grip on what you're talking about. Singling out individuals in that way certainly can cross the line into being needlessly offensive, but it certainly seems reasonable to do it occassionally. (And anyway, the you from my mail quoted above is an impersonal you, synonymous with one, so isn't on point for your complaint.) They're indistinguishable [...] Uh, no they're not. It's possible to mistake one for the other, sure, but that's a long way from indistinguishable. Too much hyperbole can be a bad thing too. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Swearing on debian lists [Was: Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:43:45PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: wrong. i will say what i please when i please. Which pretty much adresses your point about getting people to STFU. -- Raul
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
hi ted, craig, On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: Craig, snip Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. snip and please add me to that list. i would never dream of controlling what you could or could not say or your freedom of self expression, but please ask yourself: just because you have the right to say something, does that necessarily mean you should, and to the extent that you have? does it actually serve a constructive purpose? debian-* is a community of many people with many different sensibilities, cultures, and values; you would be a kind person if you were to take that into account before spouting off like that. sean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested in doing anything about that, so why should anyone else be interested in addressing your concerns? I think you have a point there. There's a difference between being abrasive, belligerent, obnoxious, and incoherent and being coherently and pointedly slanderous -- and the latter is far more noxious. -- Raul
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 00:14, Craig Sanders wrote: but i forget - certain words in the English language are allegedly beyond the pale, they are a magically perfect excuse for ignoring the actual substance of what someone has to say and to instead concentrate on whining about a few choice words. Actually, that is the point. If you were to come to me and use that same language I would ask you to come back when you calmed down and could rationally discuss the subject. If you persisted, I would walk away. I don't treat people in that fashion, and don't tollerate it from others. Your choice of words immediately cheapens or discredits your argument, no matter how valid it might be. You can choose to work within the boundaries set by society, or be ignored until you do. In international societies (yes, Debian is an international society) where individual morals and norms of behaviour vary greatly, one needs to lean toward the more polite or formal mannerisms in public forums if they wish to be heard (and not killfiled) by the greatest number of people. Pat
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:22:37AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of pedantic frothing-at-the-mouth by wowser-imitations scoring cheap points whining about the swearing. Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop. I say it's not unacceptable, and it doesn't necessarily need to stop. It's enough that you guys want to kick out non-free, don't kick out swearing, too :) I see. The mailing list policy prohibits swearing, does it not? Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge. BTW, you broke it right there yourself by Cc:ing me personally. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:36:19PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:58:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I find swearing much less offensive than making things so personal that you title threads with things like Serious problems with Mr Troup or Why Anthony Towns is wrong. But you don't seem interested in doing anything about that, so why should anyone else be interested in addressing your concerns? I think you have a point there. There's a difference between being abrasive, belligerent, obnoxious, and incoherent and being coherently and pointedly slanderous -- and the latter is far more noxious. True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. However, I don't see the difference as being all that significant. Back in my old FidoNet days, the Golden Rule of FidoNet went basically like this: Thou shalt not be excessively annoying, and thou shalt not be excessively easily annoyed. I think that applies perfectly to Debian. -- John
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you are claiming that it is OK for you to use pedantic idiocy to complain about my swearing but it is not OK for me to use swearing to complain about your pedantic idiocy. Well, I don't think I'm saying something pedantic or idiotic. But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot. It is not allowed to use swearing. I'm glad you understand so well. Thomas
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:32:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: You've got a bad habit of missing the point made in an email, then trimming it so that no one else can see the point either. If so, it's not intentional, and please correct it. I have no idea what you mean by please correct it. Do you mean Thankyou for pointing this out, now and in the future? Yes; I don't deliberately try to miss a point, nor do I try to trim deceptively. I trim because I quote only what I address, and if there is something you think I should address, and I didn't, then it wasn't malicious, and if you make a direct request, then I'm happy to oblige. As should be clear by now, I never made that compromise in the first place. I don't think mangling language for marketing purposes, or agreeing not to talk about things is a good idea. See? It's broken down. :) In any event, I'd be interested in exactly how *you'd* spell out the terms of that particular clause. What's allowed, and what's not, exactly? At the moment, the rule might as well be Anything that's found offensive by someone who dislikes non-free has to be rephrased. You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*. And people are confused about it, especially when you contradict it. The compromise is you can include non-free on the server, but it won't be part of Debian. When you say oh, but it *is* part of Debian! then you have said that, no matter what the SC says is and is not Debian, your opinion varies. You can express it all you want, that's fine. But the fact that you are so sure that Debian *does* include non-free, is a sure indication to me that the you can include it, but it's not Debian compromise has broken down. Because, whatever the SC says, so many people think it is part of Debian, including high-visibility Debian developers, that the compromise you can include it but it's not part of Debian has failed. You can say whatever you like, it's not what you say that is the problem. It's the concept which you wish to express, that it's mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of Debian, it is that *concept* which is inimical to the SC, which explicitly says, as clearly as it can, that non-free is not part of Debian. Thomas
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of pedantic frothing-at-the-mouth by wowser-imitations scoring cheap points whining about the swearing. Then don't swear. It's rude, it's unacceptible, and it needs to stop. I say it's not unacceptable, and it doesn't necessarily need to stop. It's enough that you guys want to kick out non-free, don't kick out swearing, too :) I see. The mailing list policy prohibits swearing, does it not?
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether cas actually crossed the line in the amount of profanity, that's debatable, but the let's make everything better for the meek program just isn't relevant to it. Debatable? The mailing list policy prohibits swearing.
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. and at least one responded that, like me, he found the kind of idiocy i was complaining about to be far more offensive. you are trying to make an absolute out of a subjective preference. i'm not buying it. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. the word fuck is used in everyday conversation, and has been for as long as i can remember. for anyone younger than my grandparent's generation, there is nothing particularly offensive about it - it is an emphasis marker. i find it extremely surprising that anyone actually gives a damn about it (oops! am i allowed to say damn here? what about WTF or STFU - they didn't seem to cause any stir...perhaps it is allowed to abbreviate fuck but not to actually type it? if so, that is moronic). what is actually offensive, on the other hand, is stupidity. idiocy, especially of the trivial pedantic variety that is so common on debian lists, is far more offensive than any single word could ever possibly be. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. this will happen regardless of whether i choose to use words like fuck or not. some people like sticking their heads in the sand and prefer comfortably stupid illusions. craig
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:14:35 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:55:38PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- this vote is missing a None of the above option. Typically, that options is present in DPL election ballots (since it is required by the constitution). Non election GR ballots have Further Discussion, also mandated by the constitution. Adding any other option to the ballot should go through the normal process; since a) I think it is pointless, voting further discussion ahead of either proposition means that non of the proposals are acceptable. b) I think it would be an abuse of power for me to just tack the option on wearing the secretaries hat. this is significant because it makes it impossible to put NOTA ahead of Further Discussion. If you wanted a non of the above option, you needed to propose such an amendment, and get sponsors; the constitution is pretty clear about required ballot options. NOTA should be on any call for votes, but especially any ballot that has a Further Discussion option should also have a none of the above option (aka the STFU about it option). You should, then, propose the constitutional amendment GR, and find sponsors. manoj -- If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all. Ronald Reagan Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:08:00 +1100, Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option. On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet it's there on the ballot. So? Maybe it would be clearer if you prefixed that with Allow for. Even more if you consider that this is a part of a decision making process. Futher Discussion allows for further discussion before any binding decisions are made. Does it make sense to talk about allowing people to shut up? Does it make more sense to talk about allowing people to shut up before decisions are made? are you fucking stupid? is everyone in debian fucking stupid? do you all have to squabble over the tiniest most pedantically trivial things? for fuck's sake, get a grip - argue all you like over REAL things, pick the shit out of REAL holes in people's arguments, but don't fucking waste time over stupid bullshit like this. I could say the same about your original nit pick about the ballot. the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up about this subject. that's it. that's all. nothing else. no more can be read into it. and, surprisingly, it will not be enforced by debian storm-troopers or black helicopters. Could you please take your own advice? i really don't know how much simpler i can put it than that. if even that is beyond you, then there is no point in trying again. and just in case you miss the point of this message: some of us are sick to death of this topic. So what? it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it. that's so what. And you think introducing posts in the thread with vituperative language is likely to be conducive to having people shut up? My. are you sane? you seem to make a habit of going off on weird non-sequitir tangents that appear to have no relationship to reality or to anything that has gone before. Asking for a shut up about is option on all ballots is not going off on a tangent? manoj -- Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude. Spock, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't make me laugh... the extent of the acceptance and enforcement of the mailing list code of conduct is common knowledge. Sure, but we have recently identified and discussed that many people would like Debian to be more welcoming to people who have historically felt unwelcome, including but not limited to many women. So maybe we should start trying to work on those aspects of the policy which would do some good in that direction. BTW, you broke it right there yourself by Cc:ing me personally. Yeah, I try to remember, but I do make mistakes.
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. However, I don't see the difference as being all that significant. You mean, like Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software should probably have read Debian's OS Will Remain 100% Free Software? The problem with ambiguity is that while some people are certain it means one thing, other people are certain it means something else. Being specific tends to help -- especially when offering criticism. That's why we ask for specific package names and versions on bug reports. -- Raul
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:20:45PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: True, but -- I don't think that either of those subject lines are really slanderous. The question isn't whether it's libellous; it's whether it's a productive way of having a conversation. For instance, the Why Anthony Towns is wrong should probably have read Why Anthony Towns' *Argument* is wrong -- which simply uses Anthony's name to identify which argument is being referred to. And that's utterly inappropriate and unnecessary. If you want to identify a particular theory and criticise it, do so. English is pretty expressive, and can easily handle that, eg by saying Why saying `Debian includes non-free' is wrong, even when talking about the Debian Project. It's not only less likely to annoy me (who in this case was the person Thomas needed to convince), it's also clearer (I've made a lot of arguments on this list recently), and will remain an accurate and comprehensible summary even if Thomas is successful in persuading me of his viewpoint. Thou shalt not be excessively annoying, and thou shalt not be excessively easily annoyed. So, I can only assume from this that you think I'm excessively easily annoyed. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*. Uh, no, it's not: it's a straightforward assertion about that thing that's distributed from ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/*/main/, and another straightforward assertion about the things that're distributed from ftp.debian.org/debian. It happens to use the word Debian to talk about one. It doesn't say anything about forbidding other people from using the word Debian to talk about the other. The compromise is you can include non-free on the server, but it won't be part of Debian. As long as you define Debian as the Debian system, or the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution, sure. When you say oh, but it *is* part of Debian! then you have said that, no matter what the SC says is and is not Debian, your opinion varies. As long as I define Debian as the entire project, I'm not saying anything that the social contract itself doesn't say. You can express it all you want, that's fine. But the fact that you are so sure that Debian *does* include non-free, Again, the social contract _explicitly declares the Debian project includes non-free_. Do you believe that's not the case? The social contract happens not to use the word Debian alone to refer to anything except the distribution we produce. That's fine, but it's not the only valid usage of the word. You can say whatever you like, it's not what you say that is the problem. It's the concept which you wish to express, that it's mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of Debian, it is that *concept* which is inimical to the SC, which explicitly says, as clearly as it can, that non-free is not part of Debian. It's certainly not mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. But you seem to think that's a different statement to not part of Debian. If you do think it's different, then it's completely unsupported; if you don't think it's different, then you shouldn't be complaining that people happen to use the same words to talk about different concepts. That's just the way English works. And again, please state exactly what you think this bargain is. You seem to think it's The phrase `Debian contains non-free' must never be used, even to clearly communicate between two parties a concept that's true, in a manner understood by both parties. If it's not, what is it, exactly? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Offensive emails, was: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:01:32AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 15:33:10 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:50:14AM +, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-03-11 10:48:54 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: [...] Avoiding making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious, and easier to avoid without causing problems. Is it really significantly more obnoxious? I certainly find Thomas' thread much more obnoxious than your use of the word your to single out the mail you were replying to. I was avoiding making individuals the focus of the thread, which I thought was what was described as more obnoxious. English. Lovely language. Enough ambiguities to fuel a flame spanning continents. Sorry, that wasn't ambiguous, so much as just plain wrong. Making individuals the focus of a thread is both more obnoxious and easier to avoid was how it should've read. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: But regardless, yes, it is allowed to be a pedantic idiot. Indeed, it's almost a tradition... -Miles -- I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task. --Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 06:30:03AM +, Adam Majer wrote: I hope that the above can be one of the unwritten laws. Here in Canada, a few years ago one of the provinces thought it would be a good idea to separate so there was a big referendum in that province. The separatists lost, but almost immediately they started to think of the *next* referendum! So people got fed up and elected some other party. If, after the votes have been tabulated, we cannot leave an issue like non-free alone for at least two release cycles, then it just makes the entire vote frivolous, useless and pointless in the first place. It is an insult to democracy that we have. Somebody suggested on IRC yesterday that we indeed should submit a new GR immediatly if this one should fail, as it probably would take another four years to get to vote on it ;) Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:47:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: It's impossible to enforce a STFU about it option. On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:51:49AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: similarly, it's impossible to enforce a Further Discussion option yet it's there on the ballot. So? Maybe it would be clearer if you prefixed that with Allow for. Even more if you consider that this is a part of a decision making process. Futher Discussion allows for further discussion before any binding decisions are made. Does it make sense to talk about allowing people to shut up? Does it make more sense to talk about allowing people to shut up before decisions are made? are you fucking stupid? is everyone in debian fucking stupid? do you all have to squabble over the tiniest most pedantically trivial things? for fuck's sake, get a grip - argue all you like over REAL things, pick the shit out of REAL holes in people's arguments, but don't fucking waste time over stupid bullshit like this. the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up about this subject. that's it. that's all. nothing else. no more can be read into it. and, surprisingly, it will not be enforced by debian storm-troopers or black helicopters. i really don't know how much simpler i can put it than that. if even that is beyond you, then there is no point in trying again. and just in case you miss the point of this message: some of us are sick to death of this topic. So what? it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it. that's so what. If you don't like reading about it, don't. Unsubscribe from the list(s). Killfile its threads. Stop writing about it. unfortunately, that isn't possible. the anti non-free bigots will take silence as assent and push even harder for their obnoxious aims. Or, if you prefer, carry on melodramatically about how other people are so cruel to you... WTF are you talking about it? are you sane? you seem to make a habit of going off on weird non-sequitir tangents that appear to have no relationship to reality or to anything that has gone before. craig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On 2004-03-11 01:08:00 + Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it would be nice if everyone would just shut the fuck up about it. You first. Fortunately, Swears like a sailor Sanders is not the most reasoned of the keep-non-free supporters. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up about this subject. that's it. I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying and outrageously abusive language. If someone spoke like this in my class, they would be asked not to return. If someone stood up in a technical conference and spoke like that, they would be ostracized, and security would escort them out if it were repeated. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point, for those of you to stupid to work it out for yourselves even after being told TWICE what it is, is that it makes a very nice suggestion that it would be good if people just shut the fuck up about this subject. that's it. I guess it's been decided that Debian doesn't care to stop the bullying and outrageously abusive language. If someone spoke like this in my class, they would be asked not to return. If someone stood up in a technical conference and spoke like that, they would be ostracized, and security would escort them out if it were repeated. in a class or a conference the idiocy that provoked it would not have happened - or, more precisely, would not have continued for month after month. in a class or conference, the kind of spitefully moronic pedantry that occurs on debian lists every single day would not be tolerated. it would be laughed out of the place within minutes of the first cretin trying it. alas, that doesn't happen on mailing lists. instead, it goes on for weeks or months until it pisses somebody off enough to finally say something about it - unfortunately triggering another round of pedantic frothing-at-the-mouth by wowser-imitations scoring cheap points whining about the swearing. craig ps: i may swear from time to time (whenever i feel it is appropriate AS IS MY RIGHT), but at least it is grammatically-fucking-correct swearing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please Cc me, i'm not subscribed to this list. - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] [ 1 ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAT8yammAn2xqUStcRAgz9AJ9C9i80wS8HMAnBfoYW8Aw3wGgmVACdGCnt C6VAbc1raMhAlH+Wo1hdoow= =H+DA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
