Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: If people who aren't members are raising valid concerns that need to be addressed before development can proceed, we shouldn't reject that input on the basis of membership and call it blocking development. Right. But it's also possible to raise a variety of invalid concerns in ways that require responses -- eg by saying Debian's policy in this matter is _ when it's not; in that case not responding can mislead people who aren't intimately familiar with Debian's actual policy on the matter, which is harmful. Both DD's and non-DD's troll, create flamewars, and otherwise cause issues that block development. Putting it in terms of DD's versus non-DD's is just prejudice and elitism at its worst. It's Debian developers that are expected to collectively determine what issues are valid, what our policies actually are, and what development is harmful enough that it should be blocked. Non-developers are welcome to comment on that, but their comments are only influential in so far as they persuade developers. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the last post wins school of debate. People don't listen, they just assert their point of view --- back and forth [...] Yes, I think that's a problem. There's a skill to concluding a discussion which is hard to master even once you realise you need it. Sadly, basic research skills seem to go out of the window when someone has a pet licence, a pet peeve, or pet code under a bizarre licence. There are actually good, clear summaries of most d-l topics somewhere in the archive. They're not always easy to find and indexing them would be a masterpiece of guesswork, but it is usually possible to find them by looking for similar clauses in other licences, other packages under the same licence and so on. Write-only participants are actually even more damaging to debian-legal, where a few complex topics keep arising over and over again, than to most debian lists. As a result, I have deliberately avoided d-l, because I have better things to do with my time. [...] It is possible to manage d-l on a personal level. Recently, I ignore many threads which aren't obviously to do with practical package problems or obvious requests for comment (how did I get in this one?). I'm happy for the random discussions of those who have time to continue mostly unwatched: interacting with them when they matter seems to keep most of them on track. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that might be useful would be active moderation of the list, combined with summary of the opinions (with both majority and minority opinions) that is summarized by the moderator, and which when it is due, can be archived on some web site or wiki. [...] I think that some moderation could help, to guillotine threads that show no sign of producing anything useful, but I think total moderation would harm more than help. Summaries of opinions are a good idea and there have been at least two concerted efforts to do that in the past, both failing in different ways. I don't think a wiki is a good idea - unaccountable edits while locking some people out (if wiki.d.o is used). Any summaries should be prepared personally (put them in your people.d.o space) and then signed by whoever supports them. If anyone does that, I'll link it at the next (overdue) update of www.debian.org/legal/licences/ -devel readers may not be aware of my Debian-Legal Package Lists at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/ which lists which packages have been discussed. They are announced early each month on planet.debian.org (and my own blog). If you only want to know the package-based work, it may help. However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit [...] Rather like my view of certain other debian lists. d-l is sadly average. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced. On what is that suspicion based? I disagree. Some of the worst noiseboxes were DDs and some of the best moderators weren't. Restricting to DDs would stop new posters falling from the sky and making wild statements which loonies quote as 'the view of debian-legal' but that's not a serious problem anyway. I think it would exclude all recent posters with legal training, which seems a worse problem. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 03:02:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Personally, I think non-DDs participating is great; the only problem comes when that starts becoming a way for people who aren't members of the project to block development; which can happen either by people spending time arguing with non-DDs unnecessarily or by people thinking that people speak for the project when disagreeing, though they don't. If people who aren't members are raising valid concerns that need to be addressed before development can proceed, we shouldn't reject that input on the basis of membership and call it blocking development. Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are guilty of what you are accusing non-DD's of doing. Both DD's and non-DD's troll, create flamewars, and otherwise cause issues that block development. Putting it in terms of DD's versus non-DD's is just prejudice and elitism at its worst. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 03:11:42PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: Likewise, there are plenty of DD's whose S/N ratio is pretty high, and are (pretty low, that is..) --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you very much. I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: This is one of the most common accusations leveled against d-l: that the membership of d-l is skewed and not representative of Debian as a whole. If that's true there's not much d-l can do about it, of course, and the whole process of license evaluation should perhaps be rethought. The simplest solution, though, is for those who think d-l skewed to start participating. I think what's concerning to most (it concerns me) is that people seem to be _avoiding_ d-l, presumably because they see it as invalid or corrupted by weirdos. That's indicative of a serious problem, because it means licensing issues aren't being discussed _at all_. As saddened as I would be if d-l went private, if doing so is the only way to solve that problem it's probably a good idea. The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the last post wins school of debate. People don't listen, they just assert their point of view --- back and forth, back and forth. Foo! Bar! Foo! Bar! In addition, far too many people treat mailing lists like irc discussions, where one-line witty reparte's provide entertainment (perhaps) but do not necessarily further bringing an issue to closure. As a result, I have deliberately avoided d-l, because I have better things to do with my time. If you want to reform d-l, it's not enough to ask people to just participate. It's going to be necessary to enforce some cultural changes to how participants on Debian mailing lists behave. They need to be respectful of the other participant's time, and not just use the excuse of free speach to any kind of anti-social and self-centered behaviour. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that might be useful would be active moderation of the list, combined with summary of the opinions (with both majority and minority opinions) that is summarized by the moderator, and which when it is due, can be archived on some web site or wiki. Yes, that means that d-l won't be the home to free-spirited, free-ranging debate; instead, there might be structured discussion that actually leads to light being shed and work being accomplished in an efficient manner. But it does mean that a moderator has to be found that can declare certain discussions as ratholes, and be capable of fairly summarizing the positions being espoused by various camps on the list, and holding straw polls that are based on participants on the lists, and not by number of postings on the list (which unfortunately leads to the last post wins abuse and style of discourse that we see on all too many mailing lists). If everyone participating on the list were mature and grown-up, this wouldn't be necessary. And I would suspect that the call to restrict d-l to only DD's is a hope to exclude some of the more immature and less disciplined posters. But, as we all know, being a DD does not guarantee social maturity, so I don't believe that is necessarily the best way to do things. However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you very much. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On 6/12/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The d-l list has a problem which is shared by many Debian mailing lists (including debian-vote and debian-devel, and I'm sure it's not limited to them) which is that far too many people subscribe to the last post wins school of debate. People don't listen, they just assert their point of view --- back and forth, back and forth. Foo! Bar! Foo! Bar! That's a real problem, unfortunately. A problem also exists where trivial issues sometimes get far more weight than significant issues. Where sharp lines are drawn, with definite factions evident, it's too often that core issues and real solutions are not a subject of discussion. We have something of a safety valve -- ultimately, each person responsible for actually doing something is the one who gets to decide what's really important. But other safety valves (such as good [non-hostile] senses of humor, and insight into other people's points of view) are also welcome. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:52:45AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, I *do* believe that d-l is a cesspit, and I for one am very glad that in its current incarnation, it is not at all binding and has no value other than being a debating socity --- a debating socity that I am very glad that I can avoid, thank you very much. I suspect that if it were confined to Debian developers, this problem would be much reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced. Because Debian developers *never* fight amongst themselves ;-) - David slightly less optimistic Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where these decisions are taken. Who did that? I must have missed a few posts. FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful resource, should be consulted, especially in the situations described in policy, but the decision-making should be carried out like other package decisions, including not being spiteful when bugs are reported. [...] To maintain a package you need a clear technical head, a certain minimum time commitment, and the results (good or bad) are clearly visible. Whereas anyone can blow off hot air on a mailing list. Blowing off hot air on a list is always unhelpful. Parsing a licence needs a clear head, a certain minimum time, but the results are not often clearly visible. That's probably why it sucks, frustrates the crap out of so many people and the good work that is done is underappreciated. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 12:18 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal): I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Actually, I think they should not participate, in general. [snip] Part of the problem here is that the selection process for DD's has become discredited, because (a) many good and useful people making significant technical contributions are still stuck outside the fence and also (b) many less good and less useful people are on the inside making a mess. I don't have an easy answer to this but it's something we should all be thinking about. And maybe *you* should think about it before saying non-DD contributions are not welcome. Believe me, if they stopped participating tomorrow, large key parts of the development would be completely stuck, and that includes advice on licenses. But dismantling the or undermining the tie between political decisionmaking in Debian to formal membership is not the answer. I don't see much difference between contributing to debian-legal and contributing to packaging. The contributors to the mailing list are not the ones making the decision. The ones making the decision are the ftp-masters and the release managers, using *advice* from the list. Do you need to be a DD to spot a problem with a license? No. Fortunately, most DDs can, unlike you, accept that this is a real problem even if the person spotting it is not a Chosen One. -- .''`. 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: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal): I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Actually, I think they should not participate, in general. (I'll presume people can read Ian's post for his reasoning, so that I don't have to quote it) Personally, I think non-DDs participating is great; the only problem comes when that starts becoming a way for people who aren't members of the project to block development; which can happen either by people spending time arguing with non-DDs unnecessarily or by people thinking that people speak for the project when disagreeing, though they don't. Avoiding that is a challenge, but an easy first step is just to say something when people might mistakenly think someone who's not a DD is speaking for the project. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006, David Nusinow wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. Indeed, this applies to everyone. Only the DPL (and delegates acting in a specific area of delegated responsibility) have the authority to speak ex cathedra for the project, and even they should be very cautious when doing as they are still subject to being overruled via a GR. Everyone should make ubundantly clear when they are interfacing with individuals outside of Debian mailing lists that their opinions are not necessarily the opinions of the Debian project; that they are merely representing their own concerns. This isn't something that we can effectively enforce, but not doing so can harm both the reputation of the Debian project, and the people who are misrepresenting it; if you care about our community, it behooves you to do this. As far as talking on list, I really don't think it matters whether or not you are a developer;[1] the critical thing is what you have to say and to a lesser extent the way in which you say it.[2] Don Armstrong 1: Anyone who actually reads these lists should be capable of checking db.debian.org or qa.debian.org if this sort of thing actually matters to them. 2: I'd like to think -legal contributors should always be thinking about their messages in terms of the desired end state: software in main under non-controversially DFSG free licenses. Contribute with that end goal in mind. [I suppose the same could be said for -devel contributor's desired end state: a technically excellent distribution.] -- 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 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 01:33:46AM -0400, Travis Crump wrote: David Nusinow wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed to certain positions don't get to do these things. Well, no, that's not actually true. Debian developers get a say in whatever they're responsible for. Whether that whatever is a bunch of packages on which they're listed as Maintainer, or a port they've been maintaining for a few years, or a programming language for which they maintain an extraordinary amount of packages and have been helping out in shaping a policy for, or some appointed position (as in this case) really isn't all that important. If somebody not involved with the m68k port comes and tells me that some decision I made for m68k is all wrong and that I should've done this or that instead, I'll have a good laugh. And go on with doing whatever I was doing. Which, I think, is what the ftp-masters should do to this thread. -- 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]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. If Sun believe things from random people that easily, then I've an Eiffel Tower to sell them at a discount price... In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. I think Walter Landry already did that with a ucsd.edu sig block. At least the reply was better than the For those playing along at home trolls posted recently. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:04:56 -0400]: The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. That's where the analogy breaks down, though. Analyzing software licensing situations doesn't require upload rights or a key on the developer key-ring. No, it does not break. Analyzing software licensing does in fact not require any developer privileges _at all_, in the same measure _preparing_ a full set of GNOME packages does not, either. But the same way those packages don't become official unless a developer signs them, non-DDs can't have their word count as official either, even if they're more knowledgeable than any DD on the subject matter. And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? To be a place where people get stuff believing it's official from Debian, when it's not. If you reread the long paragraph above, though, you'll note that this is only one of the possibilities (the non-allowable one); the other one is to clearly say it's not official and, if you want, why (e.g., no DDs care about this enough). -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Linda Scott - I Don't Know Why -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
* Adeodato Simó ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060606 11:54]: No, it does not break. Analyzing software licensing does in fact not require any developer privileges _at all_, in the same measure _preparing_ a full set of GNOME packages does not, either. But the same way those packages don't become official unless a developer signs them, non-DDs can't have their word count as official either, even if they're more knowledgeable than any DD on the subject matter. It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together official Debian statements. This is ok, and good, but of course, that's the exception and not the rule. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] It has happened in the past that the DPL asked a DD and a NM to make together a team to deal with a problematic license and to give together official Debian statements. [...] Whatever happened to that? July's coming, bringing a new FDL draft, if the news reports (and my memory) are accurate. There is also the delegation to a DD who assembled a team of DDs to work on another group of problematic licences. Sadly, one of those DDs resigned from the project during the delegation. I doubt that the constant abuse directed at DDs who help answer debian-legal helped, but I don't claim any insight into his resignation. It would be nice if all contributors actually tried to stick to our lists code of conduct and the constitution and those documents were actually supported in a transparent consistent manner, but most DDs seem happy to wallow in the brown stuff and sling it around liberally, including the recent unnecessary URNADD posting rash. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license. Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Monday 05 June 2006 16:50, Matthew Garrett wrote: Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions on d-l? Do you think that those of us who are not DD's should put a disclaimer (IANADD) on every message to the list? I can tell you from experience that the latter gets pretty distracting after a while. This is a serious question, btw, because you're pointing to what you evidently consider to be a serious problem, yet you're not suggesting a solution. Let's go back to Walter's original text: What is key for Debian is for clarifications to go into the license, not the FAQ. I am spectacularly unimpressed with the arguments I have seen about estoppel etc. It makes the license lawyerbait. Just fix the license. Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring then he (addresee) will ask for help. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not believe that it is feasible/useful/possible to clarify every single statement whether stated by an official DD ... It is addressee job to check that out if they are interested in. If the addressee is not capable to check official db.debian.org or to ask the sender to confirm that statement with gpg signed message and to compare that against the official debian-keyring then he (addresee) will ask for help. The context is a representative of Sun emailing debian-legal, and someone appearing to speak on behalf of Debian emailing him back. The DPL chose to clarify that Walter was not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian, presumably because he felt that there had been potential for confusion. Does that seem unreasonable? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
* Jeremy Hankins [Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:31:19 -0400]: My opinion, for what it's worth, is that most DD's, despite occasionally having strong opinions on licensing (*This* license is _free_, @#$^!) are totally uninterested in taking the time to sort through the nitpicking arguments about language, jurisdiction, and law, etc., that are needed to make a decision on a particular license or work. That leaves a vacuum on d-l, where such discussions are supposed to take place. So that leaves those of us who may not be DD's but (by whatever perversion of character) are actually interested in discussing licenses, and motivated to ensure that the quality of the licensing of Debian software remains as high as that of the software itself. We, naturally enough, have helped to fill that vacuum. So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help. The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. P.S.: Please CC me if you drop -devel. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Te has enfadado conmigo / porque te dejo / Es injusto No quieres volver a verme / porque no quiero / que estemos juntos Estás siendo egoísta / no has penseado que me quedo / solo yo también -- Astrud, Caridad signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Starting with What is key for Debian makes it sound like a policy statement on behalf of Debian, and Just fix the license could then be interpreted as a demand from Debian that Sun alter the license. In that context, it seems reasonable to point out that Walter is not in a position to speak on behalf of Debian. That's entirely reasonable. Perhaps I misinterpreted aj's message somewhat. It seemed to me to be placing rather more emphasis on Walter not being a DD. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So let's make an analogy. Imagine one day, the bulk of Debian Developers stop being interested in maintaining GNOME (or KDE, if you wish). The packages begin to rot, become obsolete, uninstallable, etc. Then, a group of non-developers who care about GNOME and, also, care about GNOME being in good shape in Debian, step up and try to help. Absolutely. That's the Debian Way(tm). The thing is that, no matter how much they work and no matter how high quality their packages are, at the end it _HAS_ to be a Debian Developer the one to sign the .changes file. Credit and acknowledgement will go to the non-developers, of course, since they did the work, but a DD has to review and sign it before it is consider oficially part of Debian. That's where the analogy breaks down, though. Analyzing software licensing situations doesn't require upload rights or a key on the developer key-ring. In fact, it doesn't require any developer privileges at all -- unless you count posting on debian mailing lists and occasionally filing bugs as developer privilege. And, if sadly no developer would be interested in uploading those packages, those contributors do not get to create an Alioth project, set up a repository, _and_ tell the world those are the official GNOME packages for Debian. They can create the project, set up the repo, and inform interested parties that they believe those packages are suitable for Debian, that they would like to see them in the official archive, and the reasons why they are in gnome.alioth.debian.org instead of ftp.debian.org. As you'll understand, nobody would like for debian-legal@lists.debian.org to become the gnome.alioth.debian.org in the example above. I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-DD's in debian-legal
David Nusinow wrote: On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:04:56PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote: I'm afraid I don't understand the fear here. What would it mean for d-l to become gnome.alioth.debian.org in your example? Non-developers, no matter how much they love Free Software and Debian, don't get to decide on the policies for the Debian project. They have a say, but they don't get to make a decision, or make any claims on behalf of the project. This applies to debian-legal contributors as well. - David Nusinow One would think that even developers that haven't been elected/appointed to certain positions don't get to do these things. Travis Crump[not a debian developer] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
