Re: Debian acronymns
Hi, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote on 06/05/2024 at 21:59:37+0200: > On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 04:52:05PM -0300, Jack Warkentin wrote: >> That's great. But how is anyone going to find it? > Google. > E.g. "Debian acronyms" points to it. While it is indeed true, Jack has a fair point: having a glossary readily available without resorting to Google seems a good thing. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Sponsorship
Hi, "avra...@hostcolor.com" wrote on 09/02/2024 at 14:56:01+0100: > Hi, > > I hope that this email finds you well :) our company HostColor.com has > a program - https://www.hostcolor.com/opensource/ - to support > open-source projects to the best we can. No need to say that apart > from the contributions that are very important for the open source > projects, there is also some vanity :) > > Anyways, do you accept sponsors, as these here - > https://www.debian.org/mirror/sponsors - and - how do you think we > could be in favor? Debian accepts sponsors. The page doesn't mention how you sponsor projects. Debian could benefit from having another sponsor for DebConf (see[0]). If you have something else in mind, please shoot. -- PEB [0] https://debconf24.debconf.org/sponsors/become-a-sponsor/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian website is blocked in Argentina. Or it's a misconfiguration?
Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote on 04/04/2023 at 11:13:46+0200: > [[PGP Signed Part:Good signature from EE215B9FB8C45B0B Pierre-Elliott Bécue > (trust ultimate) created at 2023-04-04T11:22:55+0200 using > RSA]] > Adding DSA as this is a DNS matter which falls under our scope. > > "marito...@yahoo.com" wrote on 04/04/2023 at > 05:36:35+0200: > >> I will start comparing some domains: >> >> root@LEDE:~# nslookup debian.org 1.1.1.1 >> Server: 1.1.1.1 >> Address: 1.1.1.1#53 >> >> Name: debian.org >> Address 1: 130.89.148.77 >> Address 2: 128.31.0.62 >> Address 3: 149.20.4.15 >> Address 4: 2603:400a::bb8::801f:3e >> Address 5: 2001:67c:2564:a119::77 >> Address 6: 2001:4f8:1:c::15 >> >> root@LEDE:~# nslookup www.debian.org 1.1.1.1 >> Server: 1.1.1.1 >> Address: 1.1.1.1#53 >> >> Name: www.debian.org >> Address 1: 200.17.202.197 >> Address 2: 2801:82:80ff:8009:e61f:13ff:fe63:8e88 >> >> >> The second one only gives Brazilian IP. Why?. Cannot be viewed here. >> Manually editing hosts can "fix" this problem. >> >> 200.17.202.197 is from UFPR, a blocked network by Telecom Argentina and >> Internexa. Well, the entire AS1916 (including ftp.br.debian.org, uepg, >> c3sl...). >> >> Further explanations here: (spanish) >> https://foros.3dgames.com.ar/threads/315307?p=24601216=1#post24601216 >> https://foros.3dgames.com.ar/threads/315307?p=24602387=1#post24602387 > > www.debian.org name resolution is done through GeoIP DNS (multiple > mirrors over multiple continents). For South America in general, the > only record we put for www.debian.org is santoro.debian.org which is > hosted in brazil. > > The solution here would probably to put an exception on Argentina and > put the IP of a US server for GeoIP DNS. > > I'll see with my DSA Teammates if that's fine with them and consider > this option. After discussing with them internally, it is our opinion that you should probably bring this matter with your ISP as it's not really normal that they block a whole network on web ports. On our side, we do not want to do specific work for specific ISPs having what looks like a bad policy. Regards, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian website is blocked in Argentina. Or it's a misconfiguration?
Adding DSA as this is a DNS matter which falls under our scope. "marito...@yahoo.com" wrote on 04/04/2023 at 05:36:35+0200: > I will start comparing some domains: > > root@LEDE:~# nslookup debian.org 1.1.1.1 > Server: 1.1.1.1 > Address: 1.1.1.1#53 > > Name: debian.org > Address 1: 130.89.148.77 > Address 2: 128.31.0.62 > Address 3: 149.20.4.15 > Address 4: 2603:400a::bb8::801f:3e > Address 5: 2001:67c:2564:a119::77 > Address 6: 2001:4f8:1:c::15 > > root@LEDE:~# nslookup www.debian.org 1.1.1.1 > Server: 1.1.1.1 > Address: 1.1.1.1#53 > > Name: www.debian.org > Address 1: 200.17.202.197 > Address 2: 2801:82:80ff:8009:e61f:13ff:fe63:8e88 > > > The second one only gives Brazilian IP. Why?. Cannot be viewed here. Manually > editing hosts can "fix" this problem. > > 200.17.202.197 is from UFPR, a blocked network by Telecom Argentina and > Internexa. Well, the entire AS1916 (including ftp.br.debian.org, uepg, > c3sl...). > > Further explanations here: (spanish) > https://foros.3dgames.com.ar/threads/315307?p=24601216=1#post24601216 > https://foros.3dgames.com.ar/threads/315307?p=24602387=1#post24602387 www.debian.org name resolution is done through GeoIP DNS (multiple mirrors over multiple continents). For South America in general, the only record we put for www.debian.org is santoro.debian.org which is hosted in brazil. The solution here would probably to put an exception on Argentina and put the IP of a US server for GeoIP DNS. I'll see with my DSA Teammates if that's fine with them and consider this option. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
"Roberto A. Foglietta" wrote on 20/11/2022 at 22:14:35+0100: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 at 21:42, G. Branden Robinson > wrote: > >> Thank you for, perhaps inadvertently, compelling me to review some of >> the content of the package. I can now say that I am certain there is >> material of worth in the fortunes-off package and support its retention >> in the Debian distribution. A review process for individual entries >> that are incompatible with the project's values is manifest in the BTS. >> > > rational approach vs cancel culture: 1 vs 0 > <3 Cancel culture would be shaming those having done the content/package, trying to hide it so that no one could see it (it's on GitHub and no one here plans on having it removed from there) and burn on a bench anyone asking for it to be back. The mere thing I did is to state that it's garbage to me and it should be thrown out from the archive because we have better stuff to do with our free time. Your answer: "cancel culture". I guess it's supposed to be a "rational approach"? This is rich. Regards, -- PEB
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
"G. Branden Robinson" wrote on 20/11/2022 at 19:28:59+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for D19E9C7D71266DCE created at > 2022-11-20T19:28:52+0100 using RSA]] > At 2022-11-20T11:41:56+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> I'm personally fine to defend the "less neutral" position we take by >> dropping fortunes-off which is total garbage. > > "Total garbage." Have you _read_ it? Yep, not fully, but as a rule of thumb, there's probably between 10 and 25% really offensive garbage in it. The remaining is not really worthy IMO. So either someone *wants* to take the time to filter out any problematic quote or I'd rather throw the lot. -- PEB
Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
"G. Branden Robinson" wrote on 20/11/2022 at 00:22:29+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for D19E9C7D71266DCE created at > 2022-11-20T00:22:22+0100 using RSA]] > At 2022-11-19T23:07:50+0100, Dominik George wrote: >> > Right, and has has been discussed before (more times than can be >> > counted, most likely) having some sort of content does not imply that >> > the ideology itself is promoted. The presence of the texts of the >> > Torah, the Christian Bible, the Quran, and other holy books in Debian >> > does not mean that Debian as an organization supports all of the various >> > ideologies entailed therein. >> >> You should probably take a history book and look up again what the >> author of Mein Kampf did, and compare that to what the authors of the >> other texts you mention did. > > You should probably read Numbers, Joshua, and Judges (attend > particularly to the fate of the Midianites), as well as the centuries of > history of Christian and Muslim expansion and global colonization. > >> Then, should you still find that murdering 6 million Jews in what is >> known as the Holocaust can be compared to ideas of anarchism, >> Christianity or the Islam, I fail to assume good faith. > > It's a good thing we take so little time to remember the non-Jewish > victims of the Holocaust, isn't it (non-heterosexuals, Roma, Slavs, > the mentally ill or disabled, communists, labor organizers, and > non-conformists of many sorts). Let's pay particularly little attention > to those that might be going on today. > > I concede that anarchists have made a poor showing in the slaughter > sweepstakes of global history. As in Spain from 1936-1939, we usually > find that liberal capitalists, authoritarian communists, royalist > revanchists, and the Roman Catholic Church, all frequently in conflict > with each other, can come rapidly to an ecumenical consensus, even under > circumstances of war, that democratic socialists and everyone to the > left of them need to be expediently liquidated and utterly forgotten. > > On that note, to indulge in recollection of institutional memory here, I > believe it was our second DPL Bruce Perens who first decreed that > "fortunes-off" needed to be excised from the formerly monolithic cookie > collection for the fortune(1) program; it was not thus segregated by our > upstream. His rationale was that the Debian distribution badly needed > to be made more palatable to the tender sensibilities of corporations > that might otherwise find no excuse to make a deal with Red Hat Software > instead. Debian's "apt", now widely recognized as a terrific innovation > in package management due to its automatic dependency resolution with > cycle-breaking, was forcibly renamed at Bruce's direction from "deity", > which he also thought might unduly alarm the tender-hearted > philanthropic sensibilities in C suites throughout Silicon Valley. > > By autocratic pronouncements such as these, many years ago the Debian > distribution was molded and reshaped to make itself more congruent with > the demands of U.S. tech sector capitalism. The problem with this is > less that it situates Debian more comfortably within what we might term > a militantly centrist Anglo-American politics (with Schumpeterian > "creative destruction" for tech entrepreneurs and venture capitalists > followed by pervasive rent-seeking and financialization as a firm > matures), than that people don't critically examine these processes and > acknowledge them as themselves inherently political. This very > paragraph, if uttered aloud in a Fortune 50 workplace in front of the > right (or wrong) ears, might mark one as "not a team player" and unfit > for professional advancement. (At the same time, if you share your > ideas for market disruption or rent extraction discreetly to the right > management consultants who can then vouch for you, the sky's the limit, > if you have a way to cash out your options/cryptos before the people > higher than you on the pyramid do.) > > Debian can discard fortunes-off if it wants to; I'm not sure I could > motivate myself to vote in a GR regarding that question if it came to > pass. But if any Debian contributor thinks that by doing so we make > Debian somehow more "ideologically neutral", or less encumbered by > political doctrine, that person is as self-deluded as anyone who finds a > Rosetta stone in _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. > > Regards, I'm personally fine to defend the "less neutral" position we take by dropping fortunes-off which is total garbage. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Evolving away from source package realms
Didier Raboud wrote on 07/10/2022 at 15:24:23+0200: > (This is the continuation of an unspecified thread in the debian-private list > that generated enough positive content that I deemed it smart enough to jump > off from it, to a public mailing list. I'm not quoting anything from anyone, > but there's certainly inspiration from various participants, so thanks for > that!) > > So. We should be having a public discussion about our per-source ownership, > _and_ about spread responsibilities. A long-established specificity of > Debian > development is that we have had only one, super-powerful, authorization > scheme to the archive: become an uploading DD and get unrestricted, > unsupervised upload right upon all packages. We solved the social friction > using processes, documentation, etc. (Yes, DM status opened restricted upload > rights to limited package sets). There are two sides to that. > > As all uploading DDs _can_ upload, we get (theoretical) built-in failover: > when one goes emeritus (the ideal case), they can be replaced by any other > without much process. We also get low-cost emergency fixups; if I upload > something broken just before going (explicitly) VAC, anyone can revert and > upload. Not having explicit barriers in place is (was?) a nice way to reduce > administrativia, and to address ownership disputes in the open; the only > restrictions on NMUs, orphaning and package salvaging, etc, are social, not > technical. And by the nature of being social, we address them with > processes, > documentation, policy (and committees enforcing some of the rules). In other > words, no technical barriers prevent me from uploading a broken > src:base-files; > but I will face social backlash (and possibly administrative measures), > because I would have broken agreed-upon social norms. > > The flip-side of this is also that we all _care_; as I _can_ upload src:base- > files, I feel partly responsible for it. I argue that uploading DDs care > about > all of Debian packages, not only because they care about Debian, but also > because they have the needed authorization (power) to fix any and all of > them. > What matters is not that the power is exercised, but that it exists. The set > "all Debian source packages" is a concern for all of us; we're one large team > for one _very_ large set. Attempts to split this set has worked by interest- > groups so far; language-specific, desktop-environment-specific, etc. (And it > has worked quite well for these groups, also because the subsets they care > about are reasonably self-contained). But as we all care, we are also all > entitled to opinions (that might be conflicting) about OS-level design > decisions which (as was amply demonstrated by this mega-thread) cannot > reasonably be addressed by source-level ownership. Deciding that /lib is > going > to be a symlink cannot (and, for the avoidance of doubt, has not) be a single > source package maintainer(s)' decision. But as things currently work, it > ends > up being implemented and steered as such, with our source-package-level > conflict-handling processes (TC, etc, etc). > > So, we have eachothers' backs, and we all care, how to move from there? > > Looking at how Ubuntu is structured (with topic teams) made me wonder if some > variation of that couldn't reasonably be applied to Debian, by dividing our > giant set in subsets (topic teams, baskets, ...), under clearer team's > responsibilities, and onboarding processes. That would imply that certain > people would have more power: the "PostgreSQL server" subset team would > have authority and (technical) upload rights upon their packages. And others > would have less power: not being able to upload these anymore. The flip-side > of such a setup, in which a large set of uploading-DDs would see their power > over the "PostgresSQL server" set largely reduced, is that they would also > "care less" (why investigating an RC bug if I can't NMU anyway). FWIW, I'd > happily limit my uploading rights to forbid me to upload a Gnome package, a > kernel package, or a PostgreSQL package, provided that there would be > documented onboarding processes, should that ever interest me. > > But I argue that we're already _socially_ in such an environment: all > contributors (including uploading DDs) not already in any given team go > through onboarding processes, Salsa MRs' reviews, vetting and review before > they do upload directly (modulo NMUs, of course). It's just not enforced by > the archive. I can understand your train of thoughts, but to be honest with myself, I'd rather keep the social limitation rather than enforce a technical limitation that would prevent me to upload any package and force me to do $process and wait for someone else's being available to validate it and give me access. I really think it's not the matter, to me the matter is package ownership. While new contributors should
Re: How do you manage debian mails on your mailbox?
Nilesh Patra wrote on 28/08/2022 at 07:37:07+0200: > Hi, > > I have used my primary email address with folder hooks to sort out mails > according to mailing lists/subjects, using folder hooks and read those folders > every once in a while (depending on how involved I am with each ML/team) > However, despite that I am seeing quite a bit of debian stuff in > my inbox (sometimes there is an insane amount of noise there) > and it distracts me when I want to be doing something else, and end up reading > thread after thread which I _should_ save for later. > (Yeah, maybe you can blame me for it :)) > > So, two questions:- > - - Do you use your primary email address for debian stuff as well, > or is it a different one? Yes, I use p...@pimeys.fr which is my main public mail since 2014. > - - Do you have any sensible way to cope up with so many mails from > different mailing lists and not potentially miss out on something important? My previous setup, relying on mutt, and aggressive procmail filtering, was working nice, my inbox only had mails for my Debian address that really needed to land there. The issue I had was that relevant mail also went into some directories I regularly forgot to read and sometimes I found myself lagging because of that rather than because I'm lazy. I wanted to move to mutt + notmuch, but I did not really like it. So I tried emacs + notmuch but I was also unhappy. Then I remembered my PhD Director was using emacs + mu + mu4e. mu and notmuch are quite comparable (they're very efficient very fast mail indexers/searching tools), and mu4e was more of what I expected for a frontend in emacs. So, this is my setup, now, and it takes no time for mu to lookup in its index of my 316k mails and to grab me the ones that match best my query, and then it takes little time to mu4e to grab the threads around these mails and give them to me. The setup is a bit tedious the first time, though : you need to do either offlineimap or mbsync/isync to grab all mails locally, then you need to configure mu/notmuch to index those mails (indexing several thousands mails takes a bit of time), and then you can start to browse. (and you need to learn how to use these softs, too) Some pros: 1. You have a full copy of your mails locally. 2. It's still IMAP so there's synchronization of states. 3. It's *really* fast to search and retrieve 4. It can cope with truckloads of mails Some cons: 1. The MUA is constrained (notmuch is working with few MUAs, mu, I aready know of mu4e for emacs) 2. New softs to learn to use, a toolchain a bit more complex 3. Local storage is impacted (twice, for the raw mails, and for the index database) 4. With mu (IDK for notmuch), updates come sometimes with non-backward compatible xapian DB update, and one needs to reindex (I had to do it twice in a year or so). Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Can the Debian Project ever fall?
Adam Borowski wrote on 06/06/2022 at 21:55:40+0200: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 09:37:27AM -0500, Shayan Akbar wrote: >> Hello Debian folks, >> >> As someone who depends on the Debian project a lot in my daily life, I >> cannot seem to let this idea go... Can the linux project fall? >> >> How does the project maintain itself against the man's intrinsic need to >> control and own? >> >> How many years can it stay strong and stay a free operating system >> benefiting billions? > > We are doing well. The RPM world is collapsing -- Red Hat pretty much > committed suicide, it had ~70% of the market but chosen only fat lucratious > corporate clients, who grant mucho $$$s but these days development is so > open that the NDA world is not enough to sustain enough upstream work to > prevent Red Hat from rapidly shrinking. The CentOS debacle was quite the > fat lady singing. They follow the Solaris tracks both in scheme and timing > -- first market share loss, then buyout by a corporation known for > nickle-and-diming, then hiring freeze, then last free release, then... > The track is set. Is sad to see them go but I have little hope. Fedora is > merely Red Hat-unstable. SuSE is quite independent and, while small, does > enough own development to possibly survive Red Hat's collapse. But IBM's > Red Hat... it'll have several great quarters then go down the hole that > swallowed SCO, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, etc... > > The popcorn world: Gentoo, Slack, Arch, Alpine -- they do produce quite a > bit of innovation that _is_ relevant, but as for number of users -- naah, > they hardly count. > > Ubuntu on the other hand is WTF-level unstable. First the Unity/GNOME > disaster, then they totally snapped over, then their last LTS is so buggy it > tends to randomly crash whatever I do, especially on !x86. Ppc64el falls > apart, when I tried to use vectorscan:arm64 it had heisenbugs not > reproducible on Debian, etc. I may need to touch Ubuntu for work stuff > porting, but as an user, on random hosting VMs, I'm gone. Crossgrading > to Debian is an instant fix that brings stability and when not paid, I'm > not going to spend my copious free time to debug Ubuntu bugs. > > What we do suffer though, is insane politics. > > > Meow! That's… a bit salty. Not that it's wrong, but some things could probably be nuanced. Cheers! -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o
Hi, Some clarification is needed: Wouter Verhelst wrote on 23/03/2022 at 14:45:50+0100: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 09:35:18AM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote: >> I actually believe it would be quite problematic if any single DD were >> allowed to take actions on another contributor based on their own >> judgment. That does include the DPL. §5.1.4 isn't applicable here, >> because there is someone who has responsibility. And the DPL should be >> more careful than others to respect the project's rules, not less. > > While this is accurate, I believe there is a difference here. > > Norbert was banned from Debian by the people who are delegated to make > that decision. He was banned from contributing to, and communicating > with, Debian. No he was not. He just has been removed the DD status and given the DM status. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o
Martin Steigerwald wrote on 23/03/2022 at 17:18:40+0100: > Adam Borowski - 23.03.22, 16:46:48 CET: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 03:37:27PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> > You're not the first one with the same reaction, so here's why. >> > >> > Norbert publicly lies, writting he's not packaging in Debian "thanks >> > to the da-manager", why should we care? Quite the opposite, isn't >> > it normal to publicly debunk it then? >> >> How would he "lie" by claiming that any new packaging (NEW sources or >> binaries) by him has been hobbled by the da-manager? >> >> That's a pretty undisputable fact, what can be disputed is whether the >> da-manager has been right doing so. >> >> And a number of people has been disagreeing with that, some to the >> point of leaving, temporarily or not, because of the way Norbert gets >> treated. Including prolific contributors, such as Karsten Merker or >> Dmitry Bogatov. > > I am astonished to see, again, how people here seem to project all > badness in the world onto a single former, cause expelled, Debian > developer. Especially one with whom I had zero problems with and one who > contributed a huge lot of work. The amount of work one does/did will never be an excuse for one's behaviour. > I believe it to be about time for people to look into themselves for > their contribution to all of this conflict. It is always easier to bash > someone else, I know, but it does not make Debian a friendlier place to > begin with. It just increases the fear to be bashed for speaking out > one's own truth. I really still hope that Debian community can do better > than that. > > In Debian, and very importantly also in the world, we need more unity, > not more division. But this is only achievable when everyone does their > homework. One important step here would be to be more careful when using > a word like "lies". > > It is clear to me, beyond doubt, that there is disagreement here that > has not been resolved. One can paper over this disagreement with > exercising power. But it does not help the project in the long run. > > There is work to be done. Uneasy work. But important to do, nonetheless. There is disagreement, but not all disagreement has to be sorted out. Regards, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o
Christian Kastner wrote on 23/03/2022 at 23:17:04+0100:
> On 2022-03-23 21:27, Philip Hands wrote:
>> I note that nobody in this discussion so far has tried to argue that
>> we'll somehow be poorer for being less exposed to his writings
>
> It's not fair to dismiss his frequent KDE and TeX reports like hat.
>
>> but only that some procedure might not have been followed properly.
>
> Observing processes and procedures is what gives us confidence in a fair
> and just system. That's obviously important to many of us, otherwise we
> wouldn't have so many discussions about and votes on them.
>
> I find your off-handed dismissal ("only") of this extremely ignorant and
> disrespectful to those of us to whom this is important, to the point of
> being offensive.
>
> [Note that I'm not speaking for or against any action taken here, as
> that is completely irrelevant to my point.]
>
>> P.S. the resort to an argument about procedure does seem very
>> reminiscent of the recently referenced wartime sabotage manual.
>
> This is such a toxic comment.
>
> There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why people value
> procedures regarding punitive measures -- see above -- and not only do
> you take a jab at those people, you actually have the gall to insinuate
> that this might be an act of deliberate sabotage.
>
> Your conduct blatantly and obviously violates the "be respectful" and
> "assume good faith" rules of our community, and it's entirely upsetting
> to see your confidence in believing that you are actually championing
> these principles with your message, when in fact you are demonstrating
> utter disregard for them.
Please, all, chill out.
--
PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o
Martina Ferrari wrote on 23/03/2022 at 19:01:02+0100: > On 22/03/2022 23:37, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>> Can we delete him from planet? >> >> Meh. If you want to do so, be my guest, but I fear this would be seen a >> bit badly compared to the "gain" you expect from it. > > I saw this message yesterday, and left me thinking how nobody seems > too concerned with how Preining's actions have impacted and continue > to impact members of this project. Right now I'm wondering where you deduced the amount of concern I would have regarding Norbert's actions and their impact. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Banning Norbert Preining from planet.d.o
Thomas Goirand wrote on 22/03/2022 at 21:01:27+0100: > Hi, > > In his latest post, Norbert wrote: > > "most of my activity around Debian has come to a complete halt (Send > your thanks to da-mana...@debian.org!)" > > I find it not acceptable because it's written as if da-manager are the > only persons responsible for it. He of course didn't mention that he > appealed, and that a vast majority rejected his appeal. Once more, > Norbert fails to recognize his own mistakes, and blame the others, > namely the account managers. > > I don't want to read more of such [censored], as obviously, he will > continue if we let him. > > Can we delete him from planet? Meh. If you want to do so, be my guest, but I fear this would be seen a bit badly compared to the "gain" you expect from it. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures
Felix Lechner wrote on 21/02/2022 at 19:10:08+0100: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 10:06 AM Russ Allbery wrote: >> >> Right now, you are doing exactly what Enrico described: creating >> conflict where there was none. > > I think you are blowing it out of proportion. There is no conflict but > a diversity of opinion. Actually, you did blow it out of proportion by rephrasing what Russ said initially and pretending he was telling that you were "very harmful to the project […]". And from this blow out, two subthreads emerged. And, as I already told too in other mail threads that you are quite efficient at interpreting what people wrote to you the worst possible way (sometimes with this kind of rephrasing), I can't say that I'm surprised by this. Whether it's intentional or not, I'm still wondering, although the regular repetition of this pattern tends to make things become clearer. Whether you intend or not to use all your education and abilities to try breaking that pattern, it's of course your call. Regards, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures
Russ Allbery wrote on 21/02/2022 at 07:30:48+0100: > BTW, also on that front, I think that announcing DAM warnings to the > project is a serious mistake. I understand the thought process that went > into that decision, but I really don't agree with it. The effect is to > make someone feel attacked and shamed publicly, which directly interferes > with the goal of a warning. It's also one of the major factors in making > people feel like warnings are some sort of permanent black mark against > them, which I strongly do not want to be the case. I agree. Warnings should be private at first. Some cases could be made public if the problem was big enough to be mentioned, but generally I'd expect as a random member to not be informed of a warning. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report
Felix Lechner wrote on 20/02/2022 at 22:22:51+0100: > Hi, > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:55 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> >> Cc-ing you, but if you prefer not being replied directly for lists on >> which you're subscribed, please do tell. > > Without specific requests to the contrary, I copy folks only on bugs > and not on lists but please handle that as you see fit. My mail system > deletes the duplicate automatically. Ack, I'll try not to Cc you, but I note that it'd not be a big deal. >> But for warnings, it'd >> become quite too expensive to hold any sort of trial, especially when >> the grounds for the warning are public and warrant for a warning >> independently of what could have caused them. > > How can warnings ever be warranted "independently of what could have > caused them"? If I insult you publicly, whatever you did privately or publicly, I still do insult you publicly, and that's against a CoC. It is my opinion that I still would deserve a warning for that insult. >> > The burden should be the >> > other way around, i.e the membership should be forced to affirm a >> > disciplinary DAM action if the accused does not mind the publicity. >> > Upon failure, the accused should walk. >> >> I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the two last sentences, could >> you please elaborate on these? > > With fewer than two disciplinary actions per year, it is not an undue > burden on the membership to ratify punishments at the request of the > accused. > > The DAM action should be withdrawn unless the membership affirms it in > a general vote. > > It's better for DAM, too. Since the decision is made by the project as > a whole, all accusations of bias are automatically moot. The defeat of > the accused is final. It warrants no further review unless the > evidence was flawed. The issue with that is that it can become a huge mud spread quite fast. (and btw, who does check whether the evidence was flawed?) -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions around Justice and Our Current CoC procedures
Felix Lechner wrote on 20/02/2022 at 23:42:31+0100: > Hi, > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 2:25 PM Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> A number of people over the years have talked about embodying some of >> the processes and protections of a trial in community management actions >> in Debian. That has included ideas like having the project as a whole >> decide/affirm the decision, making evidence available, giving the >> "accused" access to evidence and access to those who have made claims >> against them. >> >> I think there's broad agreement among those who have actually worked on >> community management in Debian that this would be a horrible idea and >> would not make Debian a welcoming community. > > Alas, I'll venture that the folks whose opinions you consider superior > have never been punished. I am not convinced that, even if that were right, it'd make the argument invalid in any way. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Jan 2022 DPL/DAM/CT sprint report
Cc-ing you, but if you prefer not being replied directly for lists on which you're subscribed, please do tell. Felix Lechner wrote on 20/02/2022 at 20:50:24+0100: > Hi, > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:23 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> We should **not** be using the CoC as a hammer, a tool to punish >> people. It's a set of guidelines, setting basic expectations about >> interactions one is going to have with people in Debian. People make >> mistakes - we're only human. > > As a recent recipient of a DAM warning—for an isolated incident in > which I described someone as a "freak" to a third party while that > person was present—I found Steve's email comforting. > > With regard to disciplinary proceedings, however, Debian has a long > way to go in implementing basic precepts of justice. For example, it > would be good to hold hearings in which the accused can make a > statement before any action is taken. IMHO, yeah, it would be good, and it's the sort of procedure the appeal made by DAM represents when someone gets removed. But for warnings, it'd become quite too expensive to hold any sort of trial, especially when the grounds for the warning are public and warrant for a warning independently of what could have caused them. > Those rights go back to the Magna Carta in 1215 and predate any modern > form of elected government. Instead, they limited the arbitrary and > capricious nature of unelected officials, namely the Kings of England. > As someone who has felt the stick (or, as Steve wrote, the "hammer") I > plead with DPL, DAM, CT to implement such basic protections without > further delay. > > Also, I do not know which avenues of recourse were open to me at the > time—and did not challenge the warning in any event—but it was unfair > for some folks to suggest a GR in response. The burden should be the > other way around, i.e the membership should be forced to affirm a > disciplinary DAM action if the accused does not mind the publicity. > Upon failure, the accused should walk. I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the two last sentences, could you please elaborate on these? Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership
Hi Donald, Thanks for taking the time to answer to me, and sorry that I did not reply earlier, I'm a bit swamped IRL. :) Donald Norwood writes: > Hi Pierre, > > On 7/25/21 12:19 PM, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> >> >> Out of the blue, without any more context and content, I am not sure to >> be happy with this news. >> >> To me, such a partnership is something quite stronger than sponsorship >> and I'd be a bit ill-at-ease with it being done without the whole Debian >> Members being consulted. >> >> Last but not least, what kind of data would be shared regarding how we >> use gitlab in Debian? >> > Apologies if you thought this was out of the blue, we are currently and > still in the process of bringing the awareness of the partnership to the > community prior to the main announcement, but as with any news it is > about the timing of the message delivery. > > Rest assured there were several hands on our side that went into the > initial discussions from Debian Partners to DebConf Sponsors, to the > DPL, and Press, all of us tasked with seeing things through that will > benefit the project. > > We have many Partners[1] working with and helping to support Debian, > this particular partnership starts with each of us promoting each others > conferences, sponsorships, and then expanding the relationship forward > into the future with the other items mentioned. > > The data sharing as I understand it is only toward a Case Study of how > Debian uses GitLab, it would be with information that we provide to them > on our use, selection, and goals. As more information about the Case > Study becomes available we will be sure to share it with the community. > > [1]https://www.debian.org/partners/ It is not my objective to make things change or to put the principle of partnership into question. But to me, promoting (ie advertising) Gitlab activities is a bit more than what we do for other partners. Am I wrong here? I could have missed some things. Thanks! -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership
Geert Stappers writes: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 06:19:37PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Donald Norwood writes: >> >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Debian and GitLab have been in discussion regarding an Open Source >> > Partnership toward which we will jointly produce mutual promotions, >> > shared stories, and announcements using both organizations press and/or >> > publicity channels. > ... >> > >> >> Out of the blue, without any more context and content, > > ??? > > "Debian" and "Gitlab" are speaking with each other > since the very start of "Salsa". Interacting on a technical aspect because we use gitlab is far from promoting what Gitlab does. >> I am not sure to be happy with this news. > > To me is the news that "press" and "marketing" are more involved. > Because I assume good faith, I allow meself to focus on other stuff > in (Debian) life. I also assume good faith. But Debian ang gitlab going on the promotion path, even if done in good faith, is not necessarily something that makes me happy. >> To me, such a partnership is something quite stronger than sponsorship >> and I'd be a bit ill-at-ease with it being done without the whole Debian >> Members being consulted. > > Yes, a DD is allowed to represent the project. I did not ask such a question, but rather expressed that Debian promoting Gitlab would be something worth prodding the whole project, IMHO. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership
Donald Norwood writes: > Dear all, > > Debian and GitLab have been in discussion regarding an Open Source > Partnership toward which we will jointly produce mutual promotions, > shared stories, and announcements using both organizations press and/or > publicity channels. > > There are several segments for this upcoming and future endeavor which > include a few requests from them on: How Debian uses GitLab for a case > study, some highlighting and promotion from us regarding their upcoming > GitLab Commit 2021 Conference, mutual support with media (peertube for > example), and a hand in hand expansion of both our press/publicity > networks to promote each others work where applicable. > > One of the first items we are sharing is that GitLab has committed to a > Silver level sponsorship for #DebConf21, and Debian will be listed as an > Open Source Partner at their upcoming conference: GitLab Commit 2021. > More info and registration (free of cost) at > https://gitlabcommitvirtual2021.com > > With the sponsorship arrangement we are able to have a virtual booth at > the GitLab Commit Conference (#GitLabCommit) which runs from 4:00AM PDT, > August 3rd, 2021 through 11:59PM PDT, August 4th, 2021. > > With many apologies for the short notice, we ask any Debian > Developers and Contributors who have available time if they would be > willing to assist in getting our booth up and running. The easiest and > quickest setup for us would be to select a series of slides that can > play on their main video player and a call button that will link to our > very own website. There are certain hours during August 3rd and 4th > where attendees are encouraged to visit the virtual booths so there's > possibility to schedule live sessions or chat too. > > Interested people please contact us in #debian-publicity or > debian-public...@lists.debian.org for more details. Out of the blue, without any more context and content, I am not sure to be happy with this news. To me, such a partnership is something quite stronger than sponsorship and I'd be a bit ill-at-ease with it being done without the whole Debian Members being consulted. Last but not least, what kind of data would be shared regarding how we use gitlab in Debian? Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes
Le 14 avril 2021 00:51:31 GMT+02:00, Russ Allbery a écrit : >Timo Röhling writes: > >> I would like to implement a cryptographic protocol that provides the >> same level of verifiability for secret votes as the currently used >> public votes. In particular, I would like to see some additional proof >> that the published hash values actually belong to eligible voters. > >As Kurt mentioned (but buried in one of those debian-vote threads), take a >look at Belenios if you aren't already familiar with it. > >https://www.belenios.org/ > >It presumably would need some work to be usable for Debian votes due to >needing integration with PGP signatures and our keyring, and unfortunately >we can't use the really cool homomorphic encryption mode because we want >to do Condorcet, but it otherwise seems like the right sort of direction. >As a bonus, the developer is a member of the Debian project. > >I would rather an existing system like that, which has already undergone >some cryptographic peer review, than for us to try to come up with >something novel. Secure online voting is an insanely hard problem, and >while we have enough unique conditions that we can probably relax the >constraints that make it unsafe for general population political >elections, there are still a lot of ways it can go wrong that are very >inobvious. > >-- >Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > +1 If you wish to start a DEP on the matter Timo I am eager to grant you DEP16 as you asked. :) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes
Le mardi 13 avril 2021 à 10:55:33+0200, Timo Röhling a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > in anticipation of the fact that the Debian project might conduct more > confidential votes on General Resolutions in the future, I would like to > reserve DEP-16 for an improved voting procedure for confidential votes. > > My official approval as DD is pending, so I cannot add my current draft > to the Salsa repository yet. > > Cheers I would rather not reserve any DEP for this right now. We actually don't really know if any space for DEP text regarding secret voting will be left out. The voting procedure is historically described extensively in the Constitution, and no DEP will be able to override that. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Tone policing by a member of the community team [Was, Re: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board]
Le lundi 12 avril 2021 à 14:56:34+0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit : > On 2021/04/11 01:28, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > Although I really prefer not to have them in the project, its is not the > > Debian project's task to rule about political believs, opinions, religions, > > fetishes and whatever else. But I expect that people keep these things out > > of > > Debian and especially the public discussion as far as possble. So long as > > Debian is not getting involved, it absolutely does not matter to us what > > people do outside of Debian. Let's focus on creating the best distribution > > instead. > > Not true, if someone identifies with fascist doctrine, even if they keep > those views off of the project channels, then they are not welcome here, > no matter where they engaged in those kind of activities. +1 -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian should not engage in politics and stay neutral [was: This is not the direction that will lead to hearing each other]
country here I suppose...). > > I'm sure I'm not the only person with this opinion. Please let me know > I'm not alone. > > Cheers, There seem to be for me some confusion here. It is not the same at all to accept people with different views and to let them express these if they go against the Code of Conduct we voted. (and even having stated that, I'd probably feel like asking for the expulsion of any nazi if there was one here) Apart from that, Debian is political by its mere existence, and expressing some opinion on who does or does not help us to achieve our goals is quite relevant. The fact that you are not alone having this opinion doesn't mean it is the most shared one. You are free by maintaining the status quo by not paying attention to other's political opinion. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:46:10+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit : > Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:05:26+0100, Dominik George a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's > > > readmission to the FSF board. > > > > > > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been > > > suggested. > > > > I explicitly do NOT support this GR. > > > > My opinion, as laid out at > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285: > > > > 8><-- > > With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects > > signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU > > project altogether, it seems we are officially at war. > > > > With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard > > Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his > > views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and > > sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken. > > As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate > > an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and > > hear these cases (including rms' position). > > > > What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS > > community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces > > evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and > > every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process > > certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any > > FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for > > this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem. > > > > As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee, > > and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to > > instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee). > > > > Thanks for listening! > > > > P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly > > discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to > > the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird. > > --><8 > > > > > > As such, I want to make the following amendment: > > > > 8><-- > > Choice 2 > > > > > > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard > > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > > > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the > > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the > > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to > > sign the statement, or to not do so. > > > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of: > > > > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board > > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms, > > and we take every single report very serously > > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of > > rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and > > the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with > > the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses > > * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation > > committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the > > FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other > > organisations and in full transparency > > --><8 > > Seconded. > > Note: IDK yet if I'd vote for that choice, but I'm keen on having a fair > set of choices for this GR. After thinking to it more, I rescind my sponsorship for that amendment. Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Spende via Banküberweisung
Le mercredi 30 décembre 2020 à 17:06:01+0100, Steffen Möller a écrit : > This is a question about how to donate to Debian from a German-speaking > counry while keeping fees to a minimum. I think I can answer that. > > Sehr geehrter Herr Dischinger, > > vielen Dank für Ihre Spende. Auf der Seite > https://www.debian.org/donations sind Ihre Optionen zusammengefasst. Es > bietet sich eine Banküberweisung an Debian-France an. Deren > Bankverbindung steht auf https://france.debian.net/soutenir/#compte . > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen und besten Wünschen für 2021 Indeed the answer was pretty good. Thanks! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Welcome new Debian Developer: mwei
Le vendredi 25 décembre 2020 à 20:00:38+0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit : > Greetings! > > Congratulations and welcome to Ming-ting Yao Wei (mwei), who has > completed the NM process and is now a Debian Developer (uploading) and > along with that, a full project member. > > Thank you for your contributions to Debian! And technically the first FD-approved Debian Developer status! Enjoy being able to break all the archive mwei :> (but please, don't do it) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: protontypes wants to support the Debian Project with LibreSelery
Le lundi 12 octobre 2020 à 16:05:30+0200, Tobias Augspurger a écrit : > I absolutely understand your fears. Whether a project wants to finance itself > through donations and whether these are only used for central infrastructure > depends centrally on the type of project and community. Of course, it changes > the motivation of the people if the amounts distributed become larger. We take > this into account right from the start of the project: > https://github.com/protontypes/LibreSelery/wiki/ > Transparent-Funding-of-Git-Based-Projects#human > > LibreSelery should be seen as an alternative to Tidelift or GitHub sponsors. > LibreSelery gives a FLOSS community the opportunity to distribute possible > funds without further middlemen. We are convinced that funding within open > source is ideally distributed via open-source software itself. However, as the > commercialization and financing of open source projects is increasing, we > wanted to present a concept that is more adaptable to different community > requirements. In this way, it can be decided in a public process on the basis > of a free tool how this is done. I'm not against the idea at all, it's rather the opposite. But I think it is not suit for the Debian Project as it is for now. Some people have the luxury of being paid by their employeer to do Debian Stuff, others do freelance for people using Debian systems, but in both cases, the project has no ties to their funding, it's just people using their status in their professional environment. Here, the idea is to either have the project advertise (either passively or actively) to fund people working on some projects, or to have it get some developers funded and others none. This is a right turn I'd rather not see in Debian. That being said, if it is for experimentation purposes, maybe we could help, but that'd be up to our salsa team. So, all in all, I'm not against your project, but not keen on the idea of having it implemented in Debian. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Fwd: protontypes wants to support the Debian Project with LibreSelery
Le lundi 12 octobre 2020 à 13:43:49+0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit : > Hi Debianites, Tobias from protontypes.eu asked that I forward this > message along. From what I understand, they want to make it easier to > fund individuals who work on free software. > > He also confirmed that they're working on integrating their system with > GitLab, which needed some more work because it didn't have the "donate" > framework that GitHub uses. > > If you have any questions, you can follow up here, I told them that they > can subscribe to the list to follow up. So, if I understand well, the idea is to implement a way to have a "donate" button on salsa which would rely on their work in background to loadbalance the share between developers of a specific project? If so, then I feel bad about this idea. Sure, the people paying wouldn't be the project and hence its philosophy wouldn't be compromised in its core, but still we would start advertising for payment, which is a huge step in a way I fear the outcome. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
Le vendredi 14 août 2020 à 01:10:02+0200, Ángel a écrit : > On 2020-08-13 at 16:43 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > gpg has a `--ask-cert-expire` flag and a `--default-cert-expire` > > > option in that effect. Expired certification signatures will be > > > ignored when building the Web of Trust. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > This could work, but we'd have to handle the case when developers > > forget to set a signature as time-limited/don't follow this thread and > > never care to set it up. > > > > I'd rather avoid relying on signatures, than making the meaning of > > signature quite less tangible. > > > I don't see your point. We have a general standard or what to require > for signing, and this thread started asking about weaking them due to > the pandemic. > > Limiting the time the signature is valid is a time-limited way to do > that. And it is a cryptographic one, which is a very nice feature. > I would like to have some common notation so that the standard used > could be tracked, too. > > If a developer is going to forget how to do a "weak value" signature, he > should probably stick to the standards he has generally used, but > anyway, if someone wanted to do a limited-time signature but forgot the > parameter, he should do exactly the same as if he signed Eve key while > intending to sing Alice's: revoke the wrong signature and create a new > one. I fully agree on the principle, but there is a big hiatus between what some do with their GPG key and what others do. Without being judgmental, I think this spectre of ways to do things has to be taken into account before giving any project-wide directives regarding identity certification. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
Le jeudi 13 août 2020 à 14:29:35+0200, Guilhem Moulin a écrit : > Hi, > > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 14:11:14 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le jeudi 13 août 2020 à 07:42:29-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > >>>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes: > >> > >> Paul> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:27 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >> >> I'd rather try to solve the issue in a more sensible way : lower > >> >> the number of expected GPG signatures to 0 temporarily, and ask > >> >> for two or three advocacies from DDs. > >> > >> Paul> This seems like the most natural solution to the problem of > >> Paul> COVID mentioned thus far. > >> > >> How do you feel about the idea of short-term expirations on signatures > >> proposed in the previous message on the list? > > > > Unless I missed a GPG capability, this seems kinda technically hard to > > do. > > gpg has a `--ask-cert-expire` flag and a `--default-cert-expire` option > in that effect. Expired certification signatures will be ignored when > building the Web of Trust. > > Cheers This could work, but we'd have to handle the case when developers forget to set a signature as time-limited/don't follow this thread and never care to set it up. I'd rather avoid relying on signatures, than making the meaning of signature quite less tangible. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
Le jeudi 13 août 2020 à 07:42:29-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Wise writes: > > Paul> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 3:27 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >> I'd rather try to solve the issue in a more sensible way : lower > >> the number of expected GPG signatures to 0 temporarily, and ask > >> for two or three advocacies from DDs. > > Paul> This seems like the most natural solution to the problem of > Paul> COVID mentioned thus far. > > How do you feel about the idea of short-term expirations on signatures > proposed in the previous message on the list? Unless I missed a GPG capability, this seems kinda technically hard to do. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
Le jeudi 13 août 2020 à 03:36:11+, Paul Wise a écrit : > > This wouldn't solve the broader issue that can arise when one lives in a > > place with no close DD and wants to become a DD themselves. > > Given the "problems" that are being discussed on another thread in > another location, I think there is an obvious solution to solve both > issues at the same time, once the COVID situation allows it. Could you ellaborate a bit on this part, I feel that I have missed something. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Keysigning in times of COVID-19
Le jeudi 06 août 2020 à 17:54:21+0200, Enrico Zini a écrit : > Hello, > > we have people approaching Debian with a lack of GPG signatures, and we > generally cannot ask them to travel and meet other developers in person > to get their key signed. > > Technically, we are not requiring that people meet a DD in person, only > that people have their key signed by a DD. > > Technically, every DD has their own policies for signing keys, which > could go from not requiring meeting in person at all, to requiring to > meet in person multiple times. It might require to check a government > issued photo ID, or it might not. > > Practically, I feel like most of the time people's policies match what > are the perceived expectations of the rest of the project. Meeting in > person has always been a good safe bet, if only for the reson that it's > been accepted without question for many years. > > It's time to review those expectations. > > For example, speaking of myself only, if my goal is to raise the cost of > impersonation or sock puppet identities, then probably signing someone's > key after having worked with them online for a significant time, would > require a much higher cost than showing up at a keysigning party with a > fake ID good enough to fool me. > > Others may have other policies, and are likely to be acceptable. > > As DAM, I would have a problem if someone automatically signed the keys > of every stanger who asked them nicely in an email. At the same time, I > am open to the idea of policies that do not require meeting people in > person. > > I think the world has changed enough in the last months that currently > perceived project expectations about key signing are getting out of > alignment with practical realities, and it might be time to explore > other options. > > I do not intend to ask people to break their sensible signing policies > so that people can get into Debian. I'm interested instead in exploring > what signing policies people may have, or may be considering, that have > been staying out of our narrative because we've always been having a > specific standard one that worked. > > What do you think could be alternative key signing policies, that would > be acceptable to you, that would not require traveling and meeting face > to face? IMHO, the issue with lowering keysigning policy is that these signatures will be as valid as any other for later DD application, while we probably don't want to lower our expectations for other status applications than DM. I'd rather try to solve the issue in a more sensible way : lower the number of expected GPG signatures to 0 temporarily, and ask for two or three advocacies from DDs. We'd lose a bit of ID verification security for the DM status, but we could regain this security when the DM applies to become a DD, as they'd have to reach out to other developers and get their key signed. This wouldn't solve the broader issue that can arise when one lives in a place with no close DD and wants to become a DD themselves. But it'd be a start. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [External] Re: ThinkPad laptops preinstalled Linux
be qualified on it and > > hopefully ship with Bullseye preinstalled > This makes sense but I'll be honest - I haven't run Buster on anything in a > long time. For me too much doesn't work (touchpad, graphics, audio, > networking usually). I go straight for Bullseye and then to unstable and > sometimes to experimental. > > > > > For “current” products I guess we mean everything until the 2020 > > generation (so including X13/T14/T15, I don't really know that much > > the rest of Lenovo lineup). For those I assume there would be no NDA > > needed (and actually there might already be some hardware in the > > hands of relevant people). For “next” I guess it depends a bit on the > > timescale and the level of upstream support already here. For > > “future” it's even more true, and my guess would be that most of the > > stuff need to be done by Intel (and AMD) people first. > Yep. > So we have a few platforms coming out in the next few months. X1 Carbon is > usually high on users wish list - but maybe that's less the case for > developers? (I personally quite like mine...) > The P series with the mobile workstations are nice machines too - but they > can be beasts. > > > > > So I'd say “current” and maybe “next” are the most realistic if you > > want to start somewhere. > I'm wondering if I/we can choose a couple of "next" and try that and see > what happens - but I need to go and shake some branches internally and > probably have some conversations off mailing list (I like doing everything > in public but...not sure Lenovo is quite ready to have all plans in the open > - maybe I'm overthinking it) > > Full honesty disclosure - this month is nuts. I want to give some time to > this but please be patient if responses are slow. I wrote most of this email > yesterday but didn't get to hit send untilnow If you need people to test how Debian works on your new hardware, I'd be eager to help. If you need people to actually fix stuff when you know what is to be patched/uploaded, I'd be glad to review and upload the fixes on the archive. If you need a developer who could also do the integration part (debugging/fixing on his own), I personally couldn't guarantee that I'd succeed all the time. But feel free to reach out if you need hardware beta testers. NDA is fine with me. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: alioth-lists and mailman3 (was Re: Discourse usability)
Le mardi 21 avril 2020 à 17:14:43+0200, Alex Muntada a écrit : > Hi Sean, > > > > FWIW, I think if would be great to have a comparison between > > > Discourse and Mailman3 for Debian. If anybody with strong > > > Mailman3 experience would like to share some insights, it > > > would be really appreciated. > > > > I mean, one is a mailing list service and one is not, so I > > assume what you mean here is Hyperkitty vs. Discourse? > > Actually both: Hyperkitty has some forum features (voting, > viewing, replying, etc.) but Mailman has other forum features > (moderation, filtering, subscription, list settings, etc.). > > I'm using Mailman as a list manager concept since I only have > experience with Mailman2 and I can't tell whether Mailman3 > has the same features. > > Thanks for asking. I hope it makes more sense now. Mailman3 is great on many things, but it still has some rough edges. Using Mailman3 on Debian Stable is possible, but it could come as being more frustrating than a Discourse or other instance would, because it does pretty good the mail part, but the interface and the API still need some love. I hope MM3 in Bullseye will be more rock solid. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue Mailman3 maintainer in Debian, who would love to have more users. :D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Some private discussion with Thomas made me understand why he felt ill-at-ease with my email, and I do think it requires a clarification, as I actually screwed up my phrasing. I wrote Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 22:58:08+0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit¬: > As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a > public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of > comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to > explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies > wrong. >• > Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it > makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead > of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the > issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust. The second paragraph is misphrased. While it aims at reminding that some people could believe that "apologies + explaination = no apology + explaination", and could feel that such excuses are not sincere, I personally do believe that this was not the case here and thus believe that your apologies were sincere. I'm sorry that my mistake may have led you to feel otherwise here. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le vendredi 17 avril 2020 à 11:47:36+0200, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit : > > Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it > > respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy > > that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you > > could have thought that I was going out of line. > > I do have an issue with the tone you chose. Actually I'm a bit > horrified by it. In a situation which seemed to be on the way > to deescalation, you chose a tone which contributed to escalation > (I'm not assuming intention, but I see the effects). It escalated because some people have doubts regarding the CT and its delegation, not because of the topic itself. Regarding the current state of the subthread, it's unclear whether it was descalating, and as we got some demands to help, we did think that sending an email was apprioriate here. If you're horrified by my tone, I'm happy to discuss about it, either there, or, preferably (as this subsubthread is becoming longer that it should have) in private, via the commun...@debian.org alias. I'd be glad to understand and find a way to make it less horrifying for the next times, as there will sadly be next times. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: [BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le jeudi 16 avril 2020 à 18:39:06-0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > When you say you are acting "in the name of the Community Team", you don't > get > to claim you're just like everyone else. I agree that any project member (or > list participant for that matter) can and should take steps to improve the > tone of the list. That's not what you did. You invoked the power of your > delegated authority (whatever it might be) to give your act special weight. Let me quote myself: > > What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we > > have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider > > asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter > > continue. As said, the weight I'm giving to my act is perfectly in the scope of our delegation: we will act upon this should the matter persist. You seem to forget that it's already what we did before being delegated, and, if that could make you more comfortable, my email to this list wouldn't have been different from a single bit if we weren't delegated. Actually, the other members of the CT can confirm that, but I was the one pressing that we would not need a delegation, and that if we did intend to be delegated, I was expecting no power from this delegation, and no specific rights to get someone out of any part of the project apart from the rights we have as standard Developers or members of these parts of the project. I actually stand by my point, and I would not be fine with having any specific leverage on any core team (DAM, Listmasters, DSA or other). To me this team's leverage is words, and the trust we'll build with these core teams, nothing more. > While you may not have the power to ban people directly, based on the > delegation your team's recommendations regarding interpretation of the CoC do > get special consideration. If we're all equal, some of us are more equal > than > others. Indeed, because it's our job to remind the CoC and try to have it respected. And it's regarding this job that I intervened. I'm happy that we agree on this and therefore don't really understand how you could have thought that I was going out of line. > It you'd left off the part I quoted and said everything else you said, I'd > have > had no objection. I'd have thought you were going a bit overboard, but not > enough for me to question it. I'm quite concerned that you could think that a member of the Community Team is going overboard when asking people to not continue discussing about Hitler additions in a conversation on a list, because he would need to be a listmaster to do so. > As a DD, I'm required to subscribe to d-d-a. As a package maintainer I'm > required to receive non-spam emails from the BTS. As an FTP Team member > there > are certain communication requirements. I'm about --><--- this close to just > dumping everything else because it's too draining. I'm sorry if you feel the requirement for social interactions as a draining thing, and I would really like to have some solutions to offer you about that, but I have no real clue about how to help. Yet I don't think that seeing some people trying to have a saner community and better discussions on public lists should be draining at all. If it is, I'm sorry, and I'd be happy to discuss with you about how we could do the same job in a manner that would make you more confortable. I hope that you understand why I sent this initial email, why I stand by it, and why it's important. And of course, should the listmasters think that the way we acted is excessive, we'd be glad to speak with them about that, and to have them define the frame in which we should act on lists. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
[BTB] Asking vs enforcing (was: [Summary] Discourse for Debian)
Le 16 avril 2020 23:17:46 GMT+02:00, Scott Kitterman a écrit : >On Thursday, April 16, 2020 4:58:08 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >... >> Hi, >> >> I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately >(on >> your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this >> subthread. > >Sigh. > >To quote from the recent DPL delegation for your team: > >> * To work with teams responsible for communications channels within >> the community such as listmasters, the owner of the Bug Tracking >> System, administrators of Debian Planet and others to provide >> advice; where desired by these teams, helping to deal with >> contentious and difficult issues that impact the community. > >and > >> This delegation grants no explicit power to the Community Team to >> enforce decisions; the power granted by this delegation is advisory. >> However, other teams may work with the Community Team as they choose >> and may allow the community team to have power within their channels. >> As an example, at the time of this delegation, some community team >> members are involved in list moderation. Within the rules >established >> by listmaster for the use of this moderation power, it is appropriate >> for community team members to use such power in furtherance of the >> Community Team mission. > >Are you a listmaster? According to >https://www.debian.org/intro/organization >you are not. Assuming that's the case, I think you're out of line. If > >there's a problem on a Debian list, it's the listmaster's role to >address it. >I'm further assuming that if the listmasters had asked the Community >Team to >take an active role in policing Debian lists, they would have mentioned >it. > >I've been skeptical about this delegation, but come on! Can't you even >last >two days without going outside your mandate? > >Scott K I have the feeling that maybe some basic concepts are not clear to you, so I'll state these here to avoid a rinse and repeat process. The Community Team is just a (now delegated) group of Developers where people know that they can find some advice and that will try to find solutions to Community Issues, eg by working with other teams when it is relevant. But no one has to be part of a team to ask some things out. Anyone is free to ask someone to do something, eg not posting anymore about a sadly remembered historical person on a list. You are free to ask, I'm free to ask, even a listmaster is free to ask. What I can't do is force someone to not post anymore on a list, and I'm currently not doing so. And, indeed, only a listmaster (or list moderators, as it became a thing now) can and I'd rather keep it that way. What I'm doing here is asking someone to stop posting about something, and I'm not crossing any line by doing that, otherwise this line has been so much crossed in the past years it doesn't exist anymore. What I'm implying by stating that it is an official CT request is that we have been contacted or prompted to do something and that we will consider asking, eg the listmasters, some advice or opinions should the matter continue. In some way it's a bit like when you see someone in the but putting his shoes on the seat in front of them. You don't wait to feel entitled by being a transportation officer to ask nicely the person to remove thein feet from the seat. Because we are a community of people, we have a right to expect others to understand what we ask of them without being some sort of police officer. With best regards, -- PEB (from my phone)
Re: [Summary] Discourse for Debian
Le mercredi 15 avril 2020 à 13:02:53-0400, rhkra...@gmail.com a écrit : > I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended. See (or don't see) below. > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 11:49:56 AM Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:22:29AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > This must be one of those days when I feel the need to respond to more > > > emails than I usually do. > > > > but why? > > Do you really expect an answer? Hard to explain -- I guess the > misinterpretation of one of my earlier comments led me to feel the need to > try > to explain myself. > > Apology (or attempt at explanation) is still further below. > > > > > > (2) maybe bringing systemd into a discussion is (should be considered) > > > something just as disrepectful (harmful) as bringing Hitler into a > > > discussion. > > > > i'm disgusted and not sure how I should comment on comparing a free > > software tool with someone who's actions lead to the death of millions of > > people and the holocaust. > > > I sincerely apologize! I never intended my comment to express any approval > of > Hitler or a comparison of systemd to Hitler. > > I don't know if I can explain or if an explanation would help. Without > really > thinking about the actions of Hitler, I was just trying to suggest that > bringing up an off-topic subject that provokes controversy (like systemd) > might > signal the end of useful conversation about a subject, something like > bringing > up a different off-topic subject (Hitler) has in the past signaled the end of > useful conversation on other subjects. > > To me, the idea of bringing up Hitler in a conversation is crazy / humorous, > even though his actions are far from humorous. > > (I probably dug myself in deeper :-( Hi, I'm contacting you both publicly (via debian-project@) and privately (on your GMail address) in the name of the Community Team following this subthread. As you seem perfectly aware of, bringing Adolf Hitler or nazism in a public conversation on -project as a (maybe caricatural) way of comparison is not good. Apologizing, is a good thing, but trying to explain oneself in such a situation is doing yourself and your apologies wrong. Not because one can't explain themselves at any time, but because it makes your apologies look like a pretense to justify what you said instead of making your apologies look like sincere ones. Especially when the issue lies on a touchy thing like references to the Holocaust. You replied further, in particular to a mail from Felix, in particular in private, and it seems that your discussion is neither sane nor helping to descalate things. Felix claims to feel threatened by some of your messages, and you seem to feel that your private discussion, if it occurred, was not good. In that regard, and because this part of the thread is just harmful to many readers and to the Debian Project, we'd like to ask you if you could: 1. Not contact Felix in private anymore regarding this subject. 2. Not reply to any mail regarding this part of the thread, neither in public nor in private, to anyone. In the same time, we ask the members of the list to do the same and let this part of the discussion cool down without adding any more comment. Thank you, and thank everyone else for that. If you feel the need to discuss about this situation, my mailbox is open. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Le dimanche 05 janvier 2020 à 08:21:45-0800, Tim Webster a écrit : > Debian has no place in the bedroom of its members. > No one should force their lifestyle on others. > This works both ways. If you want to have transphobic ideas or any other non-inclusive idea in your bedroom, I'm sure I can promise you Debian won't care. Possibly, in some countries, bedroom activities, including what you may think could arouse the interest of the law enforcement system, but Debian won't care. But as soon as you'll post these ideas on the community's means of communication, and more generally, on public means of communication, it becomes the community problem, and it can and should be addressed accordingly to the community's code of conduct. >From there, one can either get the CoC changed (good luck with that), or leave from the community. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Le mardi 31 décembre 2019 à 19:05:37+0900, Ansgar a écrit : > Ulrike, > > Ulrike Uhlig writes: > > Ansgar, > > > > On 31.12.19 09:50, Ansgar wrote: > >> threats of violence aren't welcome in Debian; if you cannot stop > >> yourself from wishing to beat up people, I would suggest to leave the > >> project. > > > > Stop! > > > > Expressing pain _is_ valid. > > Looks more like expressing "hate" (or "despise") to me... > > > Wanting to punch a wall is not beating up people. > > And Dato Simó said more than just wanting to punch a wall. > > > You completely > > modified and seemingly misunderstood (intentionally or not) what Dato said. > > So what is the "I wish I could say I would have charged against him" > supposed to suggest to the reader? > > Or the repeated writings how much "despise" there is for other people? > Or how much the "blood boils" because of "rage"? Does that leave the > impression of a non-violent person that it is (physically) safe to be > around, including at real life events? (For me: "no") > > > It's not up to you to suggest to anyone to leave the project. > > Is that up to Dato? > > > Stop this now. > > Sorry, but I read that expressing pain _is_ valid. Okay. Please everyone, chill out. This thread is raising a lot of intense emotional feeling and at the same time, some people, willing to prevent things from escalating are somehow making things worse. Yes, there were things said that are grave and potentially unacceptable and that should never have been said. But there is no way in the current state of the discussion to make people realize that. Instead, we're throwing rocks each one to another, and except being hurt or breaking good relationships over feelings, nothing good will come out from this. So, as Sam, I wish to hope that people with enough good sense here will hear my demand and *at least* think thrice before posting. Debian, and each of you is much more than this. Happy new year. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: are Debian mentors nuts? the DebConf scandal
Le dimanche 29 décembre 2019 à 13:25:26+0100, Ondřej Surý a écrit : > My guess this is the same individual that is harassing our lists. Maybe we > should finally involve lawyers+police and start protecting our community, the > Debian community. > > I am pretty sure that the targeted harassment and release of debian-private > archives is punishable by law at least in some jurisdictions. GDPR also comes > to a mind. > > So, I think an official legal action is required now. Agreed on the principle. But Debian having no legal existence, it can't file a complaint. We need individuals to file such complaints. That'd involve mentioned people by the harasser or Mary-Anne. Still, mind that proving who the person harassing would be a little hard (even knowing who that is), and hence, obtaining any legal enforcement solution is probably a tricky thing. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Merry Christmas more debian private leaks
Le mardi 24 décembre 2019 à 17:54:38-0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte a écrit : > I'm not joking Daniel. We've met before. We all care for you. Please get help. > > http://www.health.vic.gov.au/mentalhealthservices/ > > My prayers are with you over the holidays. I know it can be tough. Please > spend > time with your family and relax. > > Happy holidays, +1. Get well soon, Daniel. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Do we still value contributions?
Le mardi 24 décembre 2019 à 09:51:04-0600, John Goerzen a écrit : > Hi, > > I mean this post as a challenge, but not as blame. I know many teams do > hard work that can be thankless, and my intent is not to blame them, but > to challenge us as a project to question our processes and attitudes. > > Here's what I mean: > > On October 12, I uploaded glktermw, a new package. On October 19, I > uploaded nncp, also a new package. I have heard nothing at all about > either of them since, they remain in the NEW queue but even inquiries on > this have yielded nothing. In that time, NNCP has had several updates > and I packaged one of them, but finally I stopped bothering; I mean, if > it's just going to sit in NEW -- and perhaps even reduce the importance > of processing it (the NEW page now shows its age at 3 weeks, which is > the age of the second upload, not the original one) -- why should I? > > Strangely, I also uploaded a package on October 12, glulxe. It was > accepted a month later, despite depending on glktermw, which was and is > still in NEW. > > This situation makes me wonder: is it worth it putting in the effort to > package things up for Debian? At the moment, it seems the answer is no. NEW is processed by hand by the FTP Team. The FTP Team is, as any other part of the project, constituted of volunteers who do the job on their free time. Maybe you should keep that in mind. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Le lundi 23 décembre 2019 à 17:43:21+0100, Iustin Pop a écrit : > On 2019-12-23 07:15:21, Sam Hartman wrote: > > >>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Preining writes: > > > > Norbert> Dear Pierre-Elliott, (I am not subscribed to d-p anymore) > > > > Norbert> thanks for your email. I would like to ask you for an > > Norbert> explanation: > > > > Norbert> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > >> If you have troubles with diversity and the fact that to protect > > >> it, we have to be more careful with minorities than we have to be > > >> with the regular majority, no one is forcing you to stay in the > > >> project. > > > > Norbert> Could you please tell me how you came to the conclusion > > Norbert> that I have troubles with minorities? > > > > I think this may be a English issue. > > In this message I'm simply trying to help explain Pierre-Elliott's > > position, not to comment on it. > > > > As I understand it, Pierre-Elliott is suggesting that if you have > > trouble with the idea that we are more protective of minorities--that > > when marginalized communities speak we are more tolerant of anger and > > other emotions that can be perceived as uncivil--that you could leave. > > Well, I would clarity as well here—is this the official position of the > project, that some groups (and I really don't care which groups) get > lenience on the CoC because they are minorities? > > If so, that also troubles me somewhat. What Pierre-Elliott said in a > follow-up email (that neither the original email nor Tina's reply were > appropriate) is, IMO, how "equality for everyone in Debian" should be, > not that "oh, CoC is flexible depending on which group you belong to". My opinion is, indeed, that it'd have been better if Tina were able to avoid such language and aggressivity. But my opinion is also that the initial email is quite violent and I therefore understand why Tina's feeling having been hurt, she could have reacted that way. And having seen almost no one telling Geraldo such a thing, I find it disturbing to see that much people getting out of the woods to suddenly say that "oh well, equality is mandatory". > Of course, I belong to a priviledged group, so I am biased here. But I > would hope that equality starts with at least _intending_ to apply the > rules equaly. If we wish to uphold equality, then the first thing is to react without delay to the first email. Before blaming the one who reacts, please blame the one who hurts/attacks/provoke. I'm pretty sure that, if I were a member of a minor community, feeling safer because my "privileged" peers react when someone tries to tackle anything that constitute my identity, and therefore my mere existence, would help me a lot to avoid breaking the CoC by letting my feelings take the best of me. My two cents. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Le lundi 23 décembre 2019 à 09:22:12+0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : > Dear Pierre-Elliott, Dear Norbert, > thanks for your email. I would like to ask you for an explanation: What makes me sad is that you didn't even try to give one for your own attitude. :/ But here we go, I'll try to answer to your query. > On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > If you have troubles with diversity and the fact that to protect it, we > > have to be more careful with minorities than we have to be with the > > regular majority, no one is forcing you to stay in the project. > > Could you please tell me how you came to the conclusion that I have > troubles with minorities? I have pointed at and criticized Ferrari's > email without regress on her gender identity or any other personal > criteria. What makes you extrapolate that I have problems with > inclusiveness? I think you have some specific troubles with some english words. There are many ways to explain that. At first, seeing your reactions in this thread, I thought it could be related with you trying to prove a point by being offended by anything. This point could be linked to your previous expulsion from the project. And if you read my email too quickly, it's actually easy to simulate being offended by it. But it's also plausible that it's just because English is not your native language. "If", at the beginning of an assertion, tends to make it hypothetical. For the sake of the current discussion, let's assume that I say that you have troubles with diversity and that you ALSO have troubles with the fact that to protect diversity, we have to make more efforts towards minorities than we have to do for non-minorities. Let's assume I said that. It still doesn't say that you have any specific trouble with minorities. That's quite a surprise, but actually you can't read anywhere in my sentence such a thing. Regardless of this grammatical point, you showed by yourself on other lists, and on your blog (does Sage Sharp ring a bell?) that you actually have troubles with some people who weirdly incarnate some very specific minorities. You also have proved on the same channels that promoting diversity by protecting minorities and their discourses is something that unsettle you. My previous email was in reaction to yet another personnal attack on Tina you made, because she dared link a "judge statement" regarding some transphobic shit that occurred. You said that she, Tina, creates a bad environment because she wants to be considered and respected, according to the CoC. And you did such an attack just after some tone-policing and ask for a "ban" from listmasters because Tina's emotions got out of hand. Considering your past attitudes, don't you think this could be seen as a pattern? If really you meant well, I thought you could have said something like "I disapprove Geraldo's email, but I also disapprove the use of insults and you should avoid these, please don't do it again, thanks". And since you came back, it's not the first time you do such things. And yes, it makes me wonder if you actually have an issue with diversity and it's protection. I could be wrong. Please prove me I'm wrong. That'd mean that you have consideration for diversity, and, by echo, for trans people and other minorities (after all, they are human beings, you know), and it'd be a good thing for them and for the project. > To make it crystal clear, here a Gedankenexperiment: Assume I would > state on the debian-project mailing list that > Pierre-Elliott Bécue thinks that all foreigners living > in Japan are transphobe. > How would you feel/think about such a statement? But I would have done > the same as you, extrapolating from one criticizing statement to > criticizing the minority the person belongs to. I have troubles to follow your path of thoughts here. Maybe it's because English is not my native language. Could you ellaborate, by making a comparison that actually looks like one? > Thanks for reading till here. Thanks for trying to be a better person. Best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Some thoughts about Diversity and the CoC
Le vendredi 20 décembre 2019 à 13:35:32+0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Martina Ferrari wrote: > > A judge in the UK had something to say in respect of these attitudes > > yesterday: > > Hear hear who speaks ... we don't mention the environment you create. > > Norbert Maybe we could discuss about the one you're creating since you came back in the project with these small "punchlines". Hint, it's a disastrous one. If you have troubles with diversity and the fact that to protect it, we have to be more careful with minorities than we have to be with the regular majority, no one is forcing you to stay in the project. But being basically a decent human is not really an option. And it's not a matter of "taking sides", it's a matter of respect. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Le lundi 16 septembre 2019 à 04:56:19+0800, Yao Wei (魏銘廷) a écrit : > > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 02:15, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > >> Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? > >> > >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 > >> > >> Yao Wei > > > > I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email. > > > > Can you develop your point ? > > > > That was my random thought: > > If we cannot use non-free software for Debian packaging, we cannot > naturally install what we pack to examine the package. Therefore I > thought the existence of non-free section is probably doomed. > > But since non-free section is not part of Debian per DSC §5, therefore > that's not so related here. The other reason I see for it not to be really accurate is that I'm saying I'd rather keep the current situation (non-free tools like Github used to package Debian stuff) than enforce the free tooling view. If I defend the right for people to use github if they wish there is a little chance I'd advocate for removing the non-free repo. :) > Sorry for confusion, and I will try communicating carefully. > > The usage of non-free tools for packaging should be okay because we > "can" make free software out of non-free tools, though some would > think we should use free tools only to build a free society. I > believe more in harmony that the world of free software and non-free > software should be able to co-exist. This should be a philosophy > question on the position of Debian, about whether Debian is completely > non-free exclusive in every way (and whether the existence of non-free > section should be challenged again). I personally don't think we should challenge the existence of the non-free repo. > However, on the choice of VCS, I think we can REQUIRE Salsa to be on > the Vcs-Git and make Vcs-Git to be mandatory except for valid reasons. > Developers should be free to mirror their repository from the service > they would like to, but they should be two-way synchronized between > Salsa and the service. If it is possible, I'd like to propose putting > multiple Vcs-Git URLs to indicate mirrors. That could also answer the > issue that some people prefer free services instead of non-free > service used by maintainer, and can come in handy in case if Salsa is > down. I tend to see people leaving if you restrict the tools they're allowed to use, not them becoming more prone to free software in any way. Sure there'll be people eager to make the effort, but I'm afraid some will just give up contributing. I hope I made myself more understandable on this one, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Le 13 septembre 2019 00:54:47 GMT+02:00, Yao Wei a écrit : >On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:43:59PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on >> supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits >for >> the project. > >Does this also imply we are reverting the GR on non-free sections? > >https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 > >Yao Wei I have a clear doubt about your understanding of my email. Can you develop your point ? Thanks. -- PEB (from my phone)
Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 à 13:30:24-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > I'm trying to move a thread from -devel. > > Ian Jackson responded [1] to part of a consensus discussion on Git > recommendations. I had said that I think we recommend against the use > of non-free services like Github but do not forbid their use. > Ian disagreed with this recommendation. > > I responded [2] noting that around 7% of the packages with a vcs-git in > unstable are hosted on Github. > > Ian said [3] that he was confident if we had a GR to forbid use of services > like Github it would pass. > > He proposed the following text for such a GR. > > I think such a discussion is better on -project. > > [1]: > > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23927.51367.848949.15...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > [2]: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslwoedy93e.fsf...@suchdamage.org > [3]: > > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/23930.17192.131171.455...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > > > Subject: Free Software Needs Free Tools > > No Debian contributor should be expected or encouraged, when working > to improve Debian, to use non-free tools. This includes proprietary > web services. We will ensure this, insofar as it is within Debian's > collective control. > > For example, Vcs-Git fields in source packages must not refer to > proprietary git code management systems. Non-Debian services are > acceptable here so long as they are principally Free Software. > > We encourage all our upstreams to use Free/Libre tools. > > We recognise that metadata in Debian which describes the behaviour > of those outside our community, for example fields which refer to > upstream source management systems, may (in order to be accurate) > still need to refer to proprietary systems. While I'm sensible to the motivations behind this idea, in my opinion¬: 1. Restricting the platform where people would work on packaging stuff is more prone do deprive us from workforce than achieve any good. This also would complicate the interactions with our upstreams; 2. Doing so by forbidding to see these in a metadata field looks like mere wishful thinking to me; 3. Promoting and defending Free Software doesn't mean refusing to rely or touch any non-free software. We touch it each and every day; 4. This kind of GR and the potential decision would just ostracize ourselves. Living up to our own principles is a noble thing, but I'm not keen on supporting such a GR as I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for the project. I'm of course eager to change my mind if I missed something. Best, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Intent to Delegate: Delegation Advisory Group
Le jeudi 05 septembre 2019 à 09:35:01-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > >>>>> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt writes: > > > I don't think it even means that. > > > 8.2. Appointment > > > The Delegates are appointed by the Project Leader and may be replaced > > by the Leader at the Leader's discretion. The Project Leader may not > > make the position as a Delegate conditional on particular decisions by > > the Delegate, nor may they override a decision made by a Delegate once > > made. > > That is, if they introduced a resolution overriding a decision I made, I > could not remove that resolution. I cannot change the decision they > made. > > There's a related provision: > > > 5.1. Powers > > > The Project Leader may: > >1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical Committee. > > The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a > > specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the > > Technical Committee. > > Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project > > Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may withdraw > > an ongoing delegation of particular area of responsibility. > > Even that doesn't say that there cannot be overlaps in areas of > responsibility; the thing that cannot be overidden is a *decision*. > > However, it is slightly more complicated: > > >4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. > > It has generally been interpreted that once the DPL delegates something > under 5.1 (4) that's something for whom someone else now has > responsibility and so the DPL themselves cannot act. > > My interpretation is that the DPL can revise the delegation and > potentially even create overlapping delegations, but in general > (especially without special wording in the delegation text) cannot > themselves act in such a situation. > > Which is to say that I strongly agree with the principle behind how > we've interpreted it, I agree with the practical consequences I can > think of, but there are some corner cases (that are unlikely to come up) > where I think evolution of our thinking would be valuable. > > However none of this matters to the current situation. > The power in question comes from 5.1(5) not 5.1(4). > We'll save the question of whether I could write a delegation such that > I delegated all of my 5.1(5) power and retained none of it myself: I'm > definitely not doing that here. Ack, thanks for the clarification. :) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: Intent to Delegate: Delegation Advisory Group
Le 29 août 2019 13:33:14 GMT+02:00, Holger Levsen a
écrit :
>On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:22:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> The implication of "delegate" is that these are powers of the DPL.
>> Looking at powers of the DPL:
>>
>> 5 Project Leader
>> 5.1 Powers
>> (5) Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think this isn't a thing that can be delegated ?
>
>mostly because it's very unusual, usually delegations are about the
>powers defined in in 5.1.4 ("Make any decision for whom noone else has
>responsibility.") and not about the powers defined in 5.1.X where X!=4.
>
>but you are right, upon re-reading the constituion now, I also don't
>see
>wht this would be unconstitutional.
>
>thanks.
Doesn't this mean that now it's a delegated power, the DPL can't on his own
submit a GR ?
--
PEB (from my phone)
Re: RFC: endorse debian-mentors as entrance to our infrastructure projects
Le lundi 10 juin 2019 à 23:05:15+0200, Jonas Meurer a écrit : > Hi Jonathan, > > Jonathan Carter: > > On 2019/06/09 12:55, Jonas Meurer wrote: > >> My hope is that having debian-mentors as an endorsed entry point for > >> diving into Debian infrastructure would lower the entry barrier > >> significantly for new contributors who'd like to dive into our > >> infrastructure software projects. > > > > I'm usually up for trying new things and can't see a problem with that. > > > > How about also having a monthly session for newcomers on #debian-meeting > > where wishful Debian contributors can ask about anything they want and > > then we have a panel of a few knowledgable DD's ready to answer them in > > real time? > > I think that's a great idea as well. Again the key question will be how > to communicate it so that newcomers and prospective contributors know > about this monthly session. Via the usual means of communication? list + website? :) Anyway, I'm in to answer to questions! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: Please do not publish private emails on the Debian mailing lists.
Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 19:40:54+0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > Le Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:12:33AM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit : > > > > I changed my mind. No more email from Pocock will end en on this list > > through me. I don't want to give him a tribune. > > > > Sorry for the noise, and have a nice day, all ! > > Hi, > > I think that publishing private emails on the Debian lists is highly > inappropriate. Thanks for your apologies, but please bear in mind that > this is not just about noise. Please do not do that again, with any > sender. > > Cheers, Hi Charles, While I agree on the principle, I do think that there are exceptions. In this particular situation, I stated (a little too aggressively, actually, sorry for this) explicitely my wish to not receive a reply from Daniel Pocock. His reply contained nothing personal and could be appreciated as a classic method of bullying/harrassement. I'm sorry, but I don't feel I should keep such matters private as I consider it's exactly the way one can try to intimidate others. That being said, I carefully read your opinion and will consider twice or thrice the next time I feel that an email enters in my "exceptions area". I'm sorry if this situation has made anyone incomfortable, I admit I was a bit annoyed by the private email and it may have prompted me to react a little too quick. Cheers -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re: (still not off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
Le 6 février 2019 10:09:11 GMT+01:00, "Pierre-Elliott Bécue" a écrit : >Le 6 février 2019 09:58:34 GMT+01:00, Daniel Pocock >a écrit : >>On 06/02/2019 08:54, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>> Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 09:51:45+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a >>écrit : >>>> Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 08:42:13+, Daniel Pocock a >écrit : >>>>> On 04/02/2019 22:52, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>>>>> Do you really think that among more than a thousand people, >nobody >>>>>> except the two recently expelled developers made an innocent >>mistake? Do >>>>>> you actually think that regarding the one whom I replied to, he's >>on any >>>>>> "innocent mistake" path? >>>>> >>>>> That is extraordinarily offensive and defamatory >>>>> >>>>> Many people noticed that your statement makes the implication that >>there >>>>> may have been wrongdoing while providing absolutely no evidence >>>>> thereof. The only evidence that has appeared is about dirty >>politics >>>>> and backstabbing. >>>>> >>>>> This proves my point about rampant character assassination[1] in >>Debian, >>>>> thank you for proving that. >>>>> >>>>> Please kindly provide a public apology and retraction of your >>statement. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00042.html >>>> I'm pretty sure I told you to not reply to me as I would not bother >>to >>>> reply. >>>> >>>> Please kindly comply with my requirement. >>>> >>>> And stop behaving like my neighbour's child. Some introspection >>would be >>>> a good thing. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>> For the sake of clarity, I shall disclose any private email you send >>to >>> me. I don't want to have any private discussion with you. This is >not >>> negotiable. >>> >> >>OK, thank you for also helping demonstrate that there is no one person >>to be blamed for the confrontational attitudes in this community, it >>appears to be a deep rooted and pervasive problem in organizational >>culture. >> >>Regards, >> >>Daniel > >You are on a good path to prove my "not on an innocent mistake path" >point. > >This was my last reply. > >Best regards. I changed my mind. No more email from Pocock will end en on this list through me. I don't want to give him a tribune. Sorry for the noise, and have a nice day, all ! Cheers, -- PEB
Re: (still not off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later? (was: Re: (off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?)
Le 6 février 2019 09:58:34 GMT+01:00, Daniel Pocock a écrit : >On 06/02/2019 08:54, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 09:51:45+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a >écrit : >>> Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 08:42:13+, Daniel Pocock a écrit : >>>> On 04/02/2019 22:52, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >>>>> Do you really think that among more than a thousand people, nobody >>>>> except the two recently expelled developers made an innocent >mistake? Do >>>>> you actually think that regarding the one whom I replied to, he's >on any >>>>> "innocent mistake" path? >>>> >>>> That is extraordinarily offensive and defamatory >>>> >>>> Many people noticed that your statement makes the implication that >there >>>> may have been wrongdoing while providing absolutely no evidence >>>> thereof. The only evidence that has appeared is about dirty >politics >>>> and backstabbing. >>>> >>>> This proves my point about rampant character assassination[1] in >Debian, >>>> thank you for proving that. >>>> >>>> Please kindly provide a public apology and retraction of your >statement. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00042.html >>> I'm pretty sure I told you to not reply to me as I would not bother >to >>> reply. >>> >>> Please kindly comply with my requirement. >>> >>> And stop behaving like my neighbour's child. Some introspection >would be >>> a good thing. >>> >>> Regards, >> For the sake of clarity, I shall disclose any private email you send >to >> me. I don't want to have any private discussion with you. This is not >> negotiable. >> > >OK, thank you for also helping demonstrate that there is no one person >to be blamed for the confrontational attitudes in this community, it >appears to be a deep rooted and pervasive problem in organizational >culture. > >Regards, > >Daniel You are on a good path to prove my "not on an innocent mistake path" point. This was my last reply. Best regards. -- PEB from my phone.
Re: (nope, I won't go off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 09:51:45+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit : > Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 08:42:13+, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > > On 04/02/2019 22:52, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > > > Do you really think that among more than a thousand people, nobody > > > except the two recently expelled developers made an innocent mistake? Do > > > you actually think that regarding the one whom I replied to, he's on any > > > "innocent mistake" path? > > > > > > That is extraordinarily offensive and defamatory > > > > Many people noticed that your statement makes the implication that there > > may have been wrongdoing while providing absolutely no evidence > > thereof. The only evidence that has appeared is about dirty politics > > and backstabbing. > > > > This proves my point about rampant character assassination[1] in Debian, > > thank you for proving that. > > > > Please kindly provide a public apology and retraction of your statement. > > > > Regards, > > > > Daniel > > > > 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00042.html > > I'm pretty sure I told you to not reply to me as I would not bother to > reply. > > Please kindly comply with my requirement. > > And stop behaving like my neighbour's child. Some introspection would be > a good thing. > > Regards, For the sake of clarity, I shall disclose any private email you send to me. I don't want to have any private discussion with you. This is not negotiable. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: (nope, I won't go off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later? (was: (off list) Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?)
Le mercredi 06 février 2019 à 08:42:13+, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > On 04/02/2019 22:52, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > Do you really think that among more than a thousand people, nobody > > except the two recently expelled developers made an innocent mistake? Do > > you actually think that regarding the one whom I replied to, he's on any > > "innocent mistake" path? > > > That is extraordinarily offensive and defamatory > > Many people noticed that your statement makes the implication that there > may have been wrongdoing while providing absolutely no evidence > thereof. The only evidence that has appeared is about dirty politics > and backstabbing. > > This proves my point about rampant character assassination[1] in Debian, > thank you for proving that. > > Please kindly provide a public apology and retraction of your statement. > > Regards, > > Daniel > > 1. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2018/12/msg00042.html I'm pretty sure I told you to not reply to me as I would not bother to reply. Please kindly comply with my requirement. And stop behaving like my neighbour's child. Some introspection would be a good thing. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
Dear Gavin, Le lundi 04 février 2019 à 09:28:41-0700, Gavin Howard a écrit : > I am not a contributor, so take what I say with a grain of salt. > > I was planning on becoming a contributor to Debian recently and joined > the mailing list in preparation for doing so. And then I saw > everything that was happening. > > It made me nervous that people could be accused and removed without > any public process, opportunity to collect evidence, opportunity to > face their accuser, presumption of innocence, and other basic human > rights guaranteed, at least, by the US Constitution. (I don't know > about the Debian constitution.) Using references to legal arguments to determine how a private group should work and behave is not really a relevant thing. Debian has normative texts it chose as a project and none of these is entitled to the notion of "fair trial" or whatever like this. Regarding the lack of public process, I can understand how you see it as a good thing to hold "public trials", but others could say that such a "public trial" could undermine their professionnal career and their public image. Debian chose one way regarding publicity, you're free to think about alternatives. That being said, don't try to involve Human Rights or any State of Law justice notion in this as this is mostly irrelevant to the subject. I'm pretty sure you know plenty groups where the same kind of thing holds. Especially in the US. > Also, when I saw someone who appeared to be in a position of > leadership asking for evidence of wrongdoing *after* making a decision > to ban someone, that was...chilling, as though there was a vendetta > that was fulfilled and that the leader was looking for justification > of such a vendetta. The fact that some people can do mistakes sometimes isn't either a hard piece of news or something sufficient to form any judgement, especially when they retracted themselves with apologies (after being called out by members of the project, including at least two DAM). Ironically, there are two persons on this list who asked for evidences of "misbehaviours" of other people, one who retracted, and whom you pointed a finger at, and one other, who is actually the original poster of the current thread, who offered a 500£ bounty for such "evidences" and who didn't retract a thing. No one having banned anyone asked for any more evidence on this list or another. You probably made a mistake while reading these far too long threads. > For myself, I do not have great social skills and cannot read subtle, > between-the-lines, subtle messages, especially through the medium of > email. I could see a future where, if I joined Debian, I might make an > innocent mistake and not realize it until I was removed from the > project. That does not sound fun. Do you really think that among more than a thousand people, nobody except the two recently expelled developers made an innocent mistake? Do you actually think that regarding the one whom I replied to, he's on any "innocent mistake" path? I really suggest that you take some time to think about it again. > So, no thank you. And best of luck to everyone. I'm sorry if the current situation discouraged you to contribute to the project. I'm especially sorry if by the previous email I sent, I contributed to this feeling. Yet I'll respect your choice, that you are free to overturn anytime if you feel the wish to give help and input to the project. I hope you find happiness and fun in your future projects/work. Best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: enforcement first, ask questions later?
Le 03/02/2019 à 08:38, Daniel Pocock a écrit : > [snip] Daniel. There are times, not all, but some, when silence is golden. This is one such time. We've all heard (rather, read, but let's assume you asserted it so many times we've actually heard it). Forcing people to hear them again multiples times is neither relevant nor a sane thing. This is something you should have realized by yourself. Just quit this behaviour. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue No need to reply, I won't bother to read.
Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
Le 9 janvier 2019 16:49:30 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : >On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >> Would this vote be secret? In some situation, I'd rather not vote >than >> having my vote disclosed. I'm very much OK for the secretary to see >what >> I voted for though. > >The voting would be secret. I think the only output should be the >number of yes/no/abstain. > >I would try to use software that can run a vote like that, >where it's possible to provide proof that your vote was recorded >properly. I think there is such open source software, I just can't >remember it. > > >Kurt French lab Loria has developped Belenios, an enhanced version of Helios. HTH. -- PEB
Re: anti-harassment team membership concerns
gree with Russ that your framing of this is absolutely abhorrent. > >>> Your continued justification of it is digging a bigger hole. I beg > >>> you, please take a step back and reconsider your approach here > >>> before continuing along these lines. > >> There is clear evidence of character assassination. I'd like to thank > >> all those who responded after my cash bounty offer. Once again, I > >> regret that we are in this situation where such methods are > >> necessary. > > I do not intend to comment on the other stuff discussed here, … as I > > clearly do not have a complete picture of what is going on, just > > fragments. > > > > However, I see setting bounties for "denouncing" people as harmful to > > the Debian project. > > Let me make it absolutely clear: the bounty is not for denouncing > people, molesting them or any other bad behaviour. The bounty was > offered as a request for factual information, for example, copies of > emails and documents. To make an analogy, a bug bounty is not paid for > cutting off the head of the developer responsible for the bug. > > I emphasized the need to reply privately: in other words, no money has > been offered to publicly attack anybody. > > Before offering the bounty, I already knew enough about the situation to > know it was more than wild speculation. > > Another benefit of this bounty was getting facts that clear the names of > people who did not disseminate private or disparaging information. The > person who disseminated information, Chris Lamb, owes an apology to DAM > and AH for bringing the integrity of their processes into disrepute. > > > From what I see it would be most beneficial if the people who are > > involved would just meet and speak about it from person to person or at > > least in some kind of voice conference call. Maybe with a help of a > > mediator, who is clearly not involved with the issue to be cleared up. > > That is excellent advice, in fact, I tried it well before offering the > bounty. > > This is what I wrote to Chris Lamb in March 2018 > > "It seems we are both sometimes disappointed with the communications > between ourselves. We both believe in the same things and we both > believe in the integrity and reputation of the Debian project. > > Maybe the mode of communications isn't ideal. Could it be better for us > to find an opportunity to discuss things in person perhaps? I am > usually in the UK once per month, usually around Herts, currently I'm > here until Thursday." > > Lamb has told me throughout this year he hasn't had time. Yet documents > I received show me he found time to spread gossip. What is a better use > of a leader's time, meeting a developer face to face or speculating > behind their back at a time of personal tragedy? What is more likely to > protect the project's reputation and what is more likely to backfire? > > Regards, Hi Daniel, At first I had no opinion regarding your expellation from Debian Members. Not because I don't care but because I didn't have the time to look into your past activities to make myself an opinion. But seeing these eails (among others, eg the bounty one), I start to think you're better out than in. Your attitude links to complotism and disinformation campaign with targeted abuses. Knowing how excessive this behaviour may seem from outside, you should have known that evidences are mandatory when you put fingers this way and have such an attitude. Yet you fail to provide a shred of evidence here. My first guess would be that you don't have any. Either prove me wrong or grow up and stop spamming this list with such awkward stuff. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
