Re: [ssta@clothcat.org: Re: c/r for nonsubscribers Re: Posting on the list [pasc@murphy.debian.org: Re: md5sum

[Raul Miller]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:36:08PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
> I've had perfectly acceptable results with a c/r system that
> whitelists peer network addresses.

That kind of acceptability depends on context, and can change over time.

> We could demand SPF listing or c/r, until junk all has SPF.

SPF certainly introduces a level of accountability.  It likely increases
the cost for all spammers and increases the risk for illegal spammers,
but that's not the same thing as eliminating spam.

Short form: This approach might be good enough, but it might not be.

-- 
Raul

unsubscribe

[Werner Van Belle]

Shit! I lost my rubber duckie.

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:06:25 +0100, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:  

> Reading debian-vote, I think it would be helpful if we stated our
> opinion formally.  There still seems to be some dispute.

I agree with the first part of this.

> I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a
> vote.  I'm hoping we can get enough of the TC to vote in favour to
> get an official resolution well before the close of voting.

>  Headline advice: we recommend that Developers vote as follows:
>   either B,D,E,C,A,F,FD (2453167) Grandfather clause for Sarge or
>   D,B,E,C,A,F,FD (4253167) Rescind Social Contract changes

>  It seems to us that:

>   * The Social Contract as amended is unambiguous, and prevents the
> release of Sarge as-is.

>   * We would like to see Sarge's release go in parallel with the
> time-consuming fixes to the copyright problems.

>  Therefore:

>   * The Developers must decide whether to waive or amend the Social
> Contract.  If no waiver is forthcoming, then Sarge will not be
> released until all of the problematic material has been sorted
> out.

>   * If such a grandfather resolution does not pass with a 3:1
> supermajority then the Social Contract is not waived and sarge
> should not be released until the non-free stuff is removed
> somehow.

>  We are pleased to see this waiver process is happening and will
>  probably result in a resolution in time.  So:

>   * The Release Manager should plan for such a resolution to either
> grandfather the existing situation, or permit the release of
> Sarge some other way.  To do anything else would be to prejudge
> the issue.

>   * Of the General Resolution currently being voted on, the effects
> as we see them on the Sarge release process are as follows:
>   B,D,E: Sarge will go ahead (software quality permitting).  C:
>   Sarge will be delayed to remove certain non-free items not
>  covered by the grandfather clause (see below).
>   A: Sarge will go ahead if it can be done by 2004-09-01.  F:
>   Sarge will be delayed to remove the non-free `non-software'.

OK so far.

>  We offer the following observations advice to the Developers as
>  they cast their votes:

   [SNIP]

I strongly feel we should not be in the position of advising
 people how to vote.

>  We also note that the Technical Committee has no formal authority
>  in this area.  The questions being disputed are not technical.  Any
>  authority we have derives only from Release Manager (who has
>  delegated this controversial decision to us) and of course from our
>  power to state our opinions.

This paragraph is OK as well.

manoj
-- 
He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder. M.C. Escher
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
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: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[jgg]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote:

> I therefore hereby propose the following resolution and call for a
> vote.  I'm hoping we can get enough of the TC to vote in favour to get
> an official resolution well before the close of voting.

I don't think the ctte should be recommending how to vote. That just seems
wrong. Since the project is voting on the issue AJ brought here I
think it is well outside our scope to try and affect the outcome of
the GR.

BTW, does anyone else think it is kind of strange that with 7 items on the
ballot it seems entirely resonable to distill it to a binary choice?

Jason