Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections, or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be inappropriate for the TC to overrule another developer's understanding of the Social Contract; a matter such as that ought to be settled by GR instead. But that's not the question that has been put before us. Actually, I believe it is. But it's not my authority to force that upon you, you have to make your own decision in that regard. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:47:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract mandates that the Debian system not require the use of non-free components, but it doesn't go into any detail -- the distinction between main, contrib, and non-free is only specified in Debian's technical policy. It is this latter that we have been asked to rule on -- to interpret the interpretation, so to speak. IMHO, the Policy text is crystal clear. If that has undesirable implications, then it should be changed to say what it really means. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the constitution is not the object of the dispute. Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*. I Who said anything about the developer's pre-existing views? of course the ctte can't be bound by that, it wouldn't be able to do its job otherwise. I *specifically* talked about project-wide policy, as in that set by GRs, the SC, the DFSG, the constitution and whatever else we have that sets policy (and I am *NOT* talking about the Debian policy document, btw). Well, I agree with you that overruling the foundation documents is out of scope for the technical committee; except the tech ctte has not been asked to interpret or overrule the foundation documents. The Social Contract mandates that the Debian system not require the use of non-free components, but it doesn't go into any detail -- the distinction between main, contrib, and non-free is only specified in Debian's technical policy. It is this latter that we have been asked to rule on -- to interpret the interpretation, so to speak. If you think that Debian policy's definition of these archive sections, or the ftp team's implementation of it, is incompatible with the Social Contract, that is indeed not a technical question and it would be inappropriate for the TC to overrule another developer's understanding of the Social Contract; a matter such as that ought to be settled by GR instead. But that's not the question that has been put before us. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian. Were they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite. I wonder why you think it's *not* the intention of the constitution that the technical committee be in a position to overrule just about everything in Debian. The exact phrasing of the constitution is: *IMHO* the constitution doesn't feel like that was the intention, and it doesn't read like that either. So, please excuse me if I will not read into the constitution overlord powers for any body (ctte included) unless it is explicitly written in there. Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that power, but so far, I am not. Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a request for how the GFDL issue should be handled? 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be implemented. Overruling a Developer is so far from being able to overrule just about everything in Debian that it ain't funny. The example given is also of a Debian Developer in typical package maintenance function, and not of the Secretary, ftp-masters, or other delegates (and de-facto delegates) of the DPL when acting on their roles. To me, it is obvious that the ctte can resolve a dispute with the ftp-masters when the interpretation of the DFSG, SC, a GR or the constitution is not the object of the dispute. Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*. I Who said anything about the developer's pre-existing views? of course the ctte can't be bound by that, it wouldn't be able to do its job otherwise. I *specifically* talked about project-wide policy, as in that set by GRs, the SC, the DFSG, the constitution and whatever else we have that sets policy (and I am *NOT* talking about the Debian policy document, btw). only appelate body defined in the constitution, I don't believe it was ever intended that their authority could be vetoed by claiming that a particular technical decision was made on religious grounds. Constitution section 6.1.3 makes it clear that if the right person appeals, the ctte is brought into play without any possibility of other parts complaining (well, of their complaints affecting the appeal, anyway). You can appeal to the ctte always, but it doesn't have powers to *enforce* its decision unless its under 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 sections of the constitution. AFAIK the ftp-masters didn't appeal, so 6.1.3 is out (if they did appeal, then the question is indeed in the ctte enforcement sphere because of that). 6.1.2 is out as this is not a jurisdiction question. 6.1.4 could be worded much better. Does that apply to any registered member of the Debian project (that includes everyone, DPL and Secretary, DPL delegates and common Developers)? Or does it apply to the Developers as defined by 2, which clearly separates the DPL, Secretary, DPL delegates, the CTTE, a Developer doing an unamed task of his and the body of Developers? The way it is written, IMHO 6.1.4 is directed to a single Developer doing one of the usual Developer things (i.e. packaging, bug-fixing, etc), as opposed to delegates and other specialized tasks, or the entire body of Developers. As for 6.1.1, IMHO the examples and the emphasis on technical make it quite clear that stuff like interpreting the constitution and DFSG is not in 6.1.1's scope. I think this is uncontroversial, at least Ian Jackson seems to hold a similar position about 6.1.1, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg2.html (last paragraph). the constitution invests in the TC, and you kinda have to trust that we won't abuse it. I do trust the ctte not to go around abusing its power. I would trust the ctte to not take extreme decisions that would split the project even when within its power as well (instead, I expect the ctte would call for an GR on the matter). But I still don't think the ctte has power to overlord about everything in Debian, unless you mean that it can be *requested* to do so by a body that has the power to address a given issue already, through 6.1.3. The question we have been asked to consider is, which section should the ndiswrapper package list in its control file?
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:43:45PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: Of course, I can be convinced that the constitution does give the ctte that power, but so far, I am not. Otherwise, why didn't we pose to the ctte a request for how the GFDL issue should be handled? I can answer that: first, because I didn't think the committee was ready to deal with such an important issue at the time (and still don't), and second because I think having ignored the GFDL for this long that it's not a simple matter to apply existing policy, and thus appropriate for ftpmaster/release team/tech ctte to decide off their own bat. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:03:56AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still under the purview of the Technical Committee. (OBdisclaimer: I could care less wether ndiswrapper is in main, contrib, or /dev/null) Steve, it is rare that I disagree with you, but frankly, that makes no sense at all. Either that, or I misunderstood what you meant. You have here a political/social fact A which causes a technical device/method/procedure B to exist/happen. The ctte can override how B is done, but only insofar as to implement *the same* A. Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian. Were they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite. I wonder why you think it's *not* the intention of the constitution that the technical committee be in a position to overrule just about everything in Debian. The exact phrasing of the constitution is: 4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority). The Technical Committee may ask a Developer to take a particular technical course of action even if the Developer does not wish to; this requires a 3:1 majority. For example, the Committee may determine that a complaint made by the submitter of a bug is justified and that the submitter's proposed solution should be implemented. Nowhere do I see anything that says the committee must limit itself to requiring a developer to take a particular technical course of action *that agrees with the developer's pre-existing political views on the issue*. I mean, it shouldn't have to be said that developers are going to disagree with a technical committee who is overriding them for some reason or another, and I think it's rare that a technical decision is free of all non-technical considerations. Given that the technical committee is the only appelate body defined in the constitution, I don't believe it was ever intended that their authority could be vetoed by claiming that a particular technical decision was made on religious grounds. The bottom line is, the technical committee can't override our foundation documents, and it would be unwise for the committee to run around randomly overriding developers all the time; but otherwise, this *is* the power that the constitution invests in the TC, and you kinda have to trust that we won't abuse it. The question we have been asked to consider is, which section should the ndiswrapper package list in its control file? This is a technical The answer to that question is: the one policy determines it to. The ctte can not say much more than that, packages are not placed into a *suite* (main or contrib) because of any sort of technical concern. Policy claims to be a technical document. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
Hi, I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee. The question at hand is whether the statement this package is not useful without non-free software, even though it will run without non-free software is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a technical issue. The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract, or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General Resolution. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
Hi Wouter! You wrote: The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract, or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General Resolution. Wouldn't the ftp-masters be the right authority for this issue? It is them who decide if the package can go into main or not. -- Kind regards, ++ | Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 | || Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 | ++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract, or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General Resolution. You (or whoever feels strongly about this) could also provide a motivation to ftpmaster@ why you believe so, and ask for reconsideration. Everybody, even the ftp-master team, can make mistakes, or be persuadated to change mind provided with a good argumentation. I also note that the only ftp-master team member that spoke up in this thread seems to be inclined to prefer contrib over main for this package. There was no mail at all to ftpmaster@ about this, nor a bugreport filed/reassigned to the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage. Shouldn't overruling of any sort only happen after talking to the involved parties failed to yield a satisfactionary response? C.f. Constitution 6.3.6: | Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort. | | The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts | to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, unless it has | been asked to make a decision by the person or body who would normally | be responsible for it. Of course, this paragraph only applies if one assumes the (initial) authority to make the main vs contrib decision is with ftp-master, but I believe it is. --Jeroen Another FTP-Team member, who doesn't yet have an opinion on this matter, but hasn't been asked for one either -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I hereby appeal to the technical committee to reject to rule on this request, on the grounds that this is not a technical matter, and therefore falls outside the authority of the technical committee. The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still under the purview of the Technical Committee. Having been asked to override the maintainer's decision to list this package as belonging to Section: misc instead of Section: contrib/misc, I believe the committee has a responsibility to consider the issue. The question at hand is whether the statement this package is not useful without non-free software, even though it will run without non-free software is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a technical issue. The question we have been asked to consider is, which section should the ndiswrapper package list in its control file? This is a technical question, political factors notwithstanding. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:52:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:05:16PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The correct way to proceed would seem to be a ruling by a body authorized to make authoritative interpretations of the Social Contract, or, failing that (since I believe we have no such body), a General Resolution. You (or whoever feels strongly about this) could also provide a motivation to ftpmaster@ why you believe so, and ask for reconsideration. Everybody, even the ftp-master team, can make mistakes, or be persuadated to change mind provided with a good argumentation. I also note that the only ftp-master team member that spoke up in this thread seems to be inclined to prefer contrib over main for this package. There was no mail at all to ftpmaster@ about this, nor a bugreport filed/reassigned to the ftp.debian.org pseudopackage. Shouldn't overruling of any sort only happen after talking to the involved parties failed to yield a satisfactionary response? C.f. Constitution 6.3.6: | Technical Committee makes decisions only as last resort. | | The Technical Committee does not make a technical decision until efforts | to resolve it via consensus have been tried and failed, unless it has | been asked to make a decision by the person or body who would normally | be responsible for it. Of course, this paragraph only applies if one assumes the (initial) authority to make the main vs contrib decision is with ftp-master, but I believe it is. You and I both know that the ftp team is not going to unilaterally move a package from main to contrib; the package would need to be reuploaded, by the maintainer or in NMU, and pass through the NEW queue. If an upload had been made to move ndiswrapper to contrib and the ftp team had rejected this upload, that would definitely be an ftp team decision to be discussed between the ftp team and the uploader, with an appeal to the tech ctte if an agreement cannot be reached. But the only decision the ctte has been asked to overturn here has been the decision of the package maintainer to have the package in main, and the maintainer has explicitly said he will not move the package without a ruling from the tech ctte. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#353277: Please reject to rule on the ndiswrapper question
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: The Section: field of a Debian package's control file is a technical detail of the package, as is the location of a package on the Debian mirror. You may consider that a particular decision has political motivations, but this may be true of many technical decisions; the technical outcomes are still under the purview of the Technical Committee. (OBdisclaimer: I could care less wether ndiswrapper is in main, contrib, or /dev/null) Steve, it is rare that I disagree with you, but frankly, that makes no sense at all. Either that, or I misunderstood what you meant. You have here a political/social fact A which causes a technical device/method/procedure B to exist/happen. The ctte can override how B is done, but only insofar as to implement *the same* A. Otherwise, the ctte could overrule just about everything in Debian. Were they not bound by the SC themselves, they could overrule even the SC itself by determining that the files that determine in which suite a package go should make all packages in the non-free suite go into the main suite. Having been asked to override the maintainer's decision to list this package as belonging to Section: misc instead of Section: contrib/misc, I believe the committee has a responsibility to consider the issue. They can consider it, obviously. They cannot overrule ftp-masters on this matter, however. OTOH, ftp-masters may decide to listen to whatever the ctte recommends, but they don't *have* to. The question at hand is whether the statement this package is not useful without non-free software, even though it will run without non-free software is relevant wrt the requirement which is in Policy that no package in main must require any package outside of main to be built or executed. This is not a technical issue; it is simply a matter of interpretation of the social contract--which is clearly not a technical issue. Agreed. But ndiswrappers being in main or contrib is a sad reason for a GR. The question we have been asked to consider is, which section should the ndiswrapper package list in its control file? This is a technical The answer to that question is: the one policy determines it to. The ctte can not say much more than that, packages are not placed into a *suite* (main or contrib) because of any sort of technical concern. Placement inside the suit (whether in main/foo or main/bar) might be different, as it is a best-fit question decided only on technical grounds, but that's outside the scope of this thread. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
