On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Marc Haber wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:09:55AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
For what it is worth, at work we had to install Lenny on
machines which have the broadcom netextreme 2 ethernet cards (bnx2
firmware needed). The netinst installer worked
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used
to.
It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. (...)
I get no joy whatsoever out of the current mailing list
discussions. (...) We're here to make a
The problem is you can't wave a magic wand, and fix the community.
It's a self-feeding cycle which goes on and on and on. Even if we had
a Code of Conduct for Debian, unless it was strongly enforced, its the
same problem.
Whether the ballot was valid or not was immaterial, the response to it
was
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This, then, should also apply for the developer who is serving
as the secretary. Or you shpould amend your statement here, to say that
all developers, with the exception of the secretary, interpret the DFSG
in performing their duties.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to the job of most delegates and debian
packagers)
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:50:40AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Let us face it: there are always going to be bits of hardware
that can not be supported with free software; users might always have
to deal with either refraining from buying such hardware (which is not
always
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.
...
Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
I'm not too surprised by this.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:12:28AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Putting an USB key into most of my servers requires some hours of
driving and jumping through security hoops to get datacenter access.
[...]
I'd prefer an OS which allows full remote installation that does not
need some kind of
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No. The constitution doesn't say that the secretary's job is to interpret
the DFSG and decide if the 3:1 majority requirement applies. And the job
of the secretary (contrary to
Hi John,
very well said, thanks. I suggest everyone to go back and read his mail.
http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1483 is also a nice read about what working
together nicely can achieve. I miss that in Debian.
I have now decided to unsubscribe from -vote and -devel, the gain/pain ratio
has
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:28:27AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ). Any time that
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 09:35:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:15:25PM -0600, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
Avoiding getting too technical about it, it is still illogical. You
cannot produce the same effects of an amendment, even though
temporarily, bypassing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
installs.
If (almost?) everyone will use non-free stuff anyway, why not just make
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:32:51PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If that is the case, why would anyone propose changing a foundation
document, and risk failing to meet the 3:1 requirement, when they could
simply declare that they interpret it to say what they would like it to
say, and have
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone proposes a GR saying we will ship the binary NVidia
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:57:06PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Well, I haven't left, but I do far less with Debian now than I used
to.
It is still my preferred OS for a variety of reasons. I probably
shouldn't write this tired at 11:30PM, but here goes.
I get no joy whatsoever out of the
Now if only we could say positive things about people BEFORE they
resign, wouldn't this be a better place?
+1E6
John, thank you for taking the time to write and post that note. I couldn't
agree more.
When Manoj and I joined the Debian project, there were only a couple dozen of
us, and
we
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:44:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I suspect it would not be hard to create a non-free installer CD
that obviates the requirement of a separate USB key for remote
installs.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Superseding a document is easily recognizable: it's when you explicitely
say that you're going to change its _content_ (ex:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 ).
I wouldn't say that it is that easy.
It
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So, if someone
Mike O'Connor wrote:
If we make users have to decide between the 100% free installer and
the installer with non-free, and it makes the user have to think about
what is this non-free stuff, and why should I care. I think it is an
added side benefit. If a user at some point decides to vote
Didier Raboud wrote:
Providing a guaranteed (as much of Debian's knowledge) free Linux kernel
and installer in main would be really fulfilling Debian's promises. This
does not necessarily exclude providing a contaminated installer and/or
kernel in contrib (or elsewhere).
I just forgot some
On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
And please don't assume that a majority of developers are insane
and want to pervert the project. If that is the case, we're all in
a bad situation anyway. :-)
Insanity is subjective. In some sense, some of the the
interpretations of our
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document.
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:36:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:50:40AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
To paraphrase: Those who give up essential freedoms for
temporary convenience and popularity deserve neither.
This is something we need to agree to
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:00:26PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
too. I am
Le vendredi 19 décembre 2008 à 12:36 +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :
This is something we need to agree to disagree on. There are people
who still focus on The Universal Operating System, and who are
willing to make compromises in freedom without being willing to make a
totally non-free OS.
And
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the
document. Otherwise it doesn't.
So,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:28:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
In short, the ongoing GR isn’t about this disagreement, for which a
suitable compromise already exists; it is about imposing more
restrictions on the stable release than on the unstable suite.
I do not know about anyone else,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 07:47:50AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
project atmosphere. The only way we can get things back on track
and re-focus our energy on the real reason we are all here... to
create a free operating system...
I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all here to
On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation
document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As to the people who emailed me that they are putting together a
petition for the DAM to have me removed from the project, I hear you
too. I am going to spend the next few days evaluating how important the
project
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:04:55PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
project atmosphere. The only way we can get things back on track
and re-focus our energy on the real reason we are all here... to
create a free operating system...
I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all here
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents. While I have always thought that foundation implied the
proposal
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says
we will do X but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it
would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all?
What's the point?
Here's the way I see it,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
,[ The Social contract is a binding contract ]
| The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the social
| contract should apply to everything Debian does, now and in the future;
| _AND_ the social contract
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help developers,
the ftp-masters, and the release team
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
Here's the way I see it, which I think is similar to how Steve is seeing
it:
The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project is
to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what the
project wants. They don't,
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR ]
| This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
| with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
| social contract should
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
I think we will keep coming back to this biennial spate of
disagreement we have, as we determine whether or not we can release
with firmware blobs or what have you. This also would help
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, DPL interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, secretary interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, tech ctte interprets
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract, individuals interpret
[ ] The Social
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
I do ont think that determining who interprets the
non-constitution foundation documents belongs on the same ballot.
That seems entirely reasonable to me, and I agree on the undesireability
of combinatorial explosion of the ballot.
It is
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
If we're going to have a vote on this topic, I feel quite strongly that
every option which states the social contract is binding should include in
it a constitutional amendment specifying *who* decides for the project
what those
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri Dec 19 12:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
The only point of non-binding resolutions of the sense of the project
is to try to persuade people who might otherwise not think that's what
the project wants. They don't, in and of themselves, *do* anything.
Le Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:38:33PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
[ ] The Social contract is a binding contract
[ ] The social contract is binding, but currently flawed
[ ] The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple GR
[ ] The social contract is a goal, not a
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
There's nothing in the consititution that prohibits passing nonsensical
GRs or GRs that contradict foundation documents, as long as they don't
actually alter the foundation documents.
Given a ballot option which does not explicitly specify whether or
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
On Fri Dec 19 13:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
This is the root of the argument, really, and is what I'm trying to get
across. Foundation documents do not have some sort of Platonic True
Meaning that exists outside of the governance process. The words mean
Noah Meyerhans no...@debian.org writes:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:04:55PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all here to
create a free operating system. I have the impression that some
developers merely wish to create an operating system, or
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
They were drafted before the constitution was and their binding power does
*not* flow
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents. While I have always thought that
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
However, you can also override *individual decisions*, and that requires
only a simple majority. So it would be possible, under the constitution,
to get NVidia drivers into main with a set of 1:1 delegate overrides: you
override the ftp-master's
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:50:42PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Then the 3:1 requirement is nonsense and the SC and DFSG effectively
optional. I don't believe that was the intention when they were drafted.
They were drafted before the constitution
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes:
Furthermore, by my reading of the constitution, even if a delegate
override or a position statement clearly and obviously contradicted the
DFSG, as long as it doesn't actually change or set aside the DFSG, it's
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
documents.
aj wrote:
Joey Hess
Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.
Anyway, it's always interesting to
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:09:32PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who
didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the
voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position statement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:00:59PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
We need some time to solve the problems that are in main the first
time round I can live with, but uploading new instances of the same
problems to main,
I think this is a strawman that doesn't correspond either to what has
actually
On Fri Dec 19 21:10, Robert Millan wrote:
,[ The social contract is binding but may be overridden by a simple
GR ]
| This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
| with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
| social contract
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you will,
market share).
To paraphrase:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:01PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these have the same flaw as our current situation: none of them
state who interprets the Social Contract and the DSFG if there is a
dispute over what they mean.
If there is a dispute in Debian, there are three levels at
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:10:25PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
,[ The social contract is a goal, not a binding contract ]
| This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
| with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
| social contract is
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19 2008, Anthony Towns wrote:
I tend to come down hard on the side of not compromising my
principles for temporary convenience or popularity (or, if you will,
64 matches
Mail list logo
