Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown? Have you left the project? No? Then why are you asking that question? -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Compare with real-world duties. For example, nothing in our community's bylaws states that I _have_ to become a volunteer rescue worker. _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart when the condition that caused my resignation no longer applies. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result. Are you assuming that all men will do this? Note the word may. The men who do might well be operating from a negative stereotype of women. But it sounds to me as if you are countering with your own negative stereotype of men. You know, that mail clearly shows that you're part of the problem here. The fear she talks about is _hardly_ uncommon. It's the reason why there are women-only computer courses, for example. I would certainly argue that the fear is mostly unfounded, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's a cultural thing -- have you ever spent any time in a typical high school science class? *Ugh*. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational arguments. If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim), then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence. Umm, that logic works here because the meta-argument and the meta-meta-argument are actually about the same topic (rational arguments). In real-world examples, it is quite easy to sustain the Gerbil Hypothesis: you simply assert that the conclusion the supposed gerbil arrives at is invalid. We've had quite a few examples of this kind of argument on -devel recently. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:09:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, failing arguments, you play with words, how usual of this thread. Huh? No, I said what the changes would be, and they are very important changes to me. They are not important to you perhaps, but it is true that they are important to me. I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this clearly into words. And you choose to attack me on the form rather than on the content. And it is true that the packages are not part of Debian now; if you think they are, *that* is a problem. If you cannot keep it straight in your own head, then we will never expect our users to--and there is a constant flood of users who think this is a proposal to remove non-free from Debian, indicating that they haven't gotten it straight either. See above about that. They are not part of the debian project, but they are available on the debian archive, as a service to our users who need them. This is how i feel about that, and if i might not have stated this as clearly as i should, blame it on too fast writing, poor english mastery and other such things, not on what you want to blame it. I don't expect this to convince you, of course, but I expect that those who are uncertain might find it helpful. Yeah, trying to use this for your arguments instead of going to the, how do you say it in english, in french you would distinguish between the 'fond' and the 'forme'. And more to the point, do you really think moving the non-free stuff out of the debian archive and onto a separate archive would be something more than a fiction to make you non-free removal advocate happy ? It would not be a fiction. It would, in fact, cease the branding of the packages and it would cease the devoting of Debian resources to them. That's what would make me happy. A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is maybe the only asset debian really has ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advil not strong enough?
Save Money, Buy GENERIC! Prescription drugs with NO prior prescription needed! - XANAX - (to treat anxiety) - PHENTERMINE - (for weight loss) - Viagra - (got wood?) - Ambian - (For a Great NightÂ’s Sleep) - Lipitor - (to reduce cholesterol) - NEXIUM - (to treat acid reflux and GERD) - PAXIL - (to treat mental ailments i.e. depression or panic attacks) - VIOXX - (to relieve pain) Check out Canadian Generics below: http://cared45.com/gp/default.asp?id=gm03 http://775rgt.com/host/emailr em ove. asp
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate non-free.org archive? Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's different. Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. What does it change in the long run? It stops having the debian name attached to non-free packages, it stops debian being a distributor of non-free packages, and it stops the use of debian resources to support the non-free packages. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part nonetheless. And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be, isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it. In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ? Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. What it changes is Debian doing this other distracting thing, which is not part of the Debian distribution: maintaining the non-free archive on our resources, and distributing it in a way which causes users to become mistaken and think it's part of Debian. Over debian developers doing this more distracting thing: maintaining a more costly alternative non-free archive with our own ressource and distributing, in a way which is separate from debian only in name, and even then, all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think. nothing else. You have already described the current state as one in which non-free is part of Debian--indicating that the compromise position we thought we had has more or less entirely broken down. Anthony Towns as well has now said that the compromise is meaningless. Yeah, and ? Do you really think this may change once non-free is moved to non-free.org ? Please be serious. Yes. People will still be confused perhaps, but I believe that an awful lot fewer will do. Yeah, please bring forward a study showing your fact. your belief is of not help here. And, you conveniently forget about section 5 of our social contract, which you agreed to when you became a debian maintainer, and now that you don't need netscape anymore or whatever other non-free package, you want to get ride of it. I haven't proposed getting rid of any packages. Removing non-free from the Debian servers doesn't mysteriously cause the bits to vanish. Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult, this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate non-free.org archive? Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's different. Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. People who think that apt-get.org is part of Debian are so far off already that it makes no difference. There will always be people with strange views, we should optimize for the common case. And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, compared to apt-get.org or backports.org or whatever. But really, I don't see why it's necessary to argue about all this. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. That's a really slipperly slope here. What if Debian Developers in proprietary companies make non-free binary .deb packages for their companies products, would that still be part of the Debian project? What about other unofficial stuff, like .debs on people.debian.org, or backports at www.backports.org? Is that 'part of the debian project'? Where do you draw the line? And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be, isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it. In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ? Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. s/who don't like non-free packages/who don't like the Debian project to be associated with non-free packages/ all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think. I find your reasoning highly irrational. 'Who thinks that apt-get is part of Debian will believe non-free.org is part of Debian, too. Those who don't will also believe that debian/non-free is seperate from debian/main'. I don't believe this is true at all. Please show evidence that people think apt-get.org is part of the Debian project first, before you use this as a carte blanche. Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult, this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian. If you can't cope with uploading stuff to non-free.org instead to ftp.debian.org, I can't help you. I really fail to see how this would be so difficult at all. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Message
Regretfully, Epic Games is no longer providing technical support via email or telephone for its products. You can receive help for Epic products from the publishers who publish them. For product support please visit: http://www.epicgames.com/support.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:15:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a non-free package on the Debian server, this should be possible. You are proposing no change, ever. No, I'm proposing we change when everyone's writing free software, because the recognise that it's the best way of doing development and there's no benefit, short term or long term to them in doing anything else. Including Microsoft and nVidia. I don't have any particular concern if this doesn't happen within my lifetime. Right, but that's no change. We don't have to do anything to have non-free vanish with the last package in it. That's the *current* system. You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good because it's the current system. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Well, yes, of course the thread's been lost -- you just trimmed it all away. Read through the above with an open mind -- ie, don't assume that everyone thinks the way you expect them to. Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but this isn't it. We change when everyone's writing free software. But that's no change. That's the current system. There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. What he seemed to be saying was that the fact that we distribute non-free software needs to and should change. And it does need to, and it should. But we have a system for dealing with that already. Really? What is it? What is the system for removing packages from non-free? The maintainer says this package is no longer needed or this packages has been relicensed under the GPL or similar, and it gets removed. What did you think it was? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. But what if two weeks later some maintainer sees the need for a new non-free package? Will we start distributing non-free again? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. Anyone surely includes people who are maintainers, considering almost everyone who's covered by the Debian constitution is a maintainer. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided by the Debian project. If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous terminology. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:12:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. But what if two weeks later some maintainer sees the need for a new non-free package? Will we start distributing non-free again? I don't think that's a concern -- by the time we get down to there only being a handful of non-free packages that any of our users might want, I doubt any of them will be worthwhile enough to justify the extra admin burden, small as that is. Whether that be four packages or six packages or whatever isn't likely to be a big problem in practice, since by the time Microsoft and nVidia and similar companies are writing free software, the only stuff that isn't going to be free is going to be pretty pointless and easily replaced. At any rate it's a question we don't have to deal with now, and it's a question better dealt with once we know what the few remaining packages worth having in non-free actually are. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
Hy! I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and i have read almost the complete discussion here about non-free. I think it could be useful to read the view of a normal user about this issue because i think the discussion is sometime at a high level of rhetoric words and not on the level which relate to the normal users. First what i don't really understand is, at one point people says non-free isn't part of the Debian OS (that's what also says the Debian SC) but at the other hand some people argue that Debian have to provide the user non-free programs if they need it. But how can Debian provide this software to there user if it isn't part of the Debian OS? Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Now look deeper in the Debian OS. If i install Debian, the installer asked me if i want to include non-free in my source-list. If the Debian OS have no non-free, why the installer asked me about? Than i install some packages and apt-get suggested me non-free software, why? I think the whole discussion about this is a lot rhetoric blabla if you can suggest or recommend non-free packages or not. If Debian don't provide non-free Software and also says it will be a 100% free Operating System than it shouldn't recommend or suggest the user non-free packages. Than i try to find some package from the Debian OS in the Package database on the Debian homepage, and what i see? The database searches by default also in the non-free archive! Look at all these point and tell me, without just rhetoric blabla, why a user should think that non-free isn't part of the Debian OS? I think there are no arguments on the realistic level of users which fits the reality how non-free packages are treated at the moment. Now how does this encourage people to use more ore less non-free software: I have seen a lot Debian user (i am also in the past) which just install every packet which is recommend or suggested just to have all installed which is in any form part of the software i have originally installed. Even if i will never use this feature just to know that i can do everything which is possible with the software package. This leads people to non-free software, even if they don't really need it, Debian shouldn't encourage people to install non-free software. Also a lot of people install programs like the adobe acrobat-reader just because they know him from there last operating system or from school, business, what ever... I have explained why most people think non-free es part of the Debian OS and why the most user have non-free in there source-list, so they just see that there is an acrobat-reader so they installed it. They don't even think about it, that there is also other alternatives which are free and fit there needs too. If they wouldn't find by default this non-free program they would maybe search for pdf viewer and would find the free alternatives which fit there needs. Another example would be mpg123 vs. mpg321. Many Debian user recommend you mpg123 if you ask for a console mpg-player, so the most people wouldn't think about it and install it although there would be a free replacement with mpg321. There would be more examples but i think that is enough to show you the arguments. I just think that if an apt-get install a_non-free_program would say no package available the user would search for a package which does something simular and maybe find someone. I think that's the right way, because so Debian leads the user to free Software and not to non-free Software. Often i read the argument that Debian have to help people to use there computer, with free and non-free Software. But how far does this help goes? I think Debian GNU/Linux is an open and free operation system everyone can study it and insert new features or programs whether free or non-free. Everyone can learn how to build a Debian package, so it's free to everyone to build Debian package from non-free programs. I think that's more than enough help, which you can become from a operating system which goal is Free Software and not non-free software! One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe true or not. But i think if you define the goal of Debian to create an 100% free operating system thats not a problem for Debian. If there is no non-free, than you are a DD if you work on the Debian OS which is only free Software. If you want also package non-free packages no one can and will stop you doing this. But this will nothing have to do with your job as DD. There will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
[Please be careful about headers on replies to this message, it's crossposted. Trim lists which are irrelevant to your context.] On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote: Hy! I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and i have read almost the complete discussion here about non-free. I think it could be useful to read the view of a normal user about this issue because i think the discussion is sometime at a high level of rhetoric words and not on the level which relate to the normal users. Interesting take. For the full message, see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00347.html One thing I'd really like to see (in apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, dpkg-deb, and so on), is some kind of tag indicating the origin of the package. We've got Section: and Priority:, but nothing about Distribution: -- I think each of the logical columns in /etc/sources.list warrants a meta-tag inserted in the package description at unpack time. This is almost independent of the outcome of the vote. For backwards compatibility, I'd think that these headers would need to be passed in environmental variables (and use unknown or local or some other such default if those variables are not set). There might be some need for a cleanup utility to strip this information out of the package database [at least for testers, who might want to upgrade to the new dpkg multiple times]. I don't know that I have much else to say about this -- maybe something similar is already in the works? -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
Markus wrote: Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: Markus wrote: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Then i would say it is definitely a step forward. But i doesn't mean the default source.list in my message above. I mean something like I have accidentally deleted my source.list, can you tell me how a normal Debian GNU/Linux source list looks? This kind of question were answered to 99% in Debian or GNU/Linux user forums with source.list entries which contain contrib and non-free just because for the most users non-free is part of the Debian OS, as i have explained in my above message more detailed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:17:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous terminology. That's part of what this proposal is all about. When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or 'the non-free component of the Debian distribution'. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. So? That's what I said. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. YMMV, and all that. My position is, though, that this is the way it works in many real-world communities also, and quite frankly I fail to see why it shouldn't work that way in Debian. I'll save the question whether my original mesage was _that_ difficult to understand for some other time if you don't mind. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: Markus wrote: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Yes. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. That's not what I said. I didn't say James wouldn't notice. I was talking about the public discussion ^w flame-fest on -devel. Since that didn't contain any message from James (the stuff Ingo quoted doesn't count) he simply wasn't visible. (There might have been the wrong word; sorry if that was misunderstandable.) -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. No. That would be to *passively* obstruct the rules, and such passive obstruction is allowed. For this reason the project needs to have things like an NMU procedure and a QA team to carry the slack when someone is inactive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. It will not completely solve the problem, but nothing will. It will make a dent. That responds to the last sentence. I believe that there is an inherent benefit to having a 100% free operating system, and also to having systems which are devoted to free software. I believe that the Debian name should clearly and unequivocally stand for free software, and that this would only strengthen the organization. If we disagree, then we disagree, and we will all vote. I have long since given up trying to convince you; if what I have said already does not convince you, then probably nothing will. Fortunately, Debian will vote, and neither you nor I get a veto. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part nonetheless. This is hogwash. Debian developers are involved in the MIT Student Information Procession Board, but it doesn't follow that sipb is a part of debian--even when sipb makes .deb packages. Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. Are you calling me a liar? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided by the Debian project. This is an excellent reason to get the name off of the service. I want the name Debian to be associated with free software. I'm willing to vote for that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have nothing to address? Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly described or means for testing it are inadequate. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this clearly into words. And you choose to attack me on the form rather than on the content. Huh? You asked what changes I thought it would make. It makes some change, a change which is very important to me, and of only minimal value to you. See above about that. They are not part of the debian project, but they are available on the debian archive, as a service to our users who need them. Ah, ok. Then I think it will be a lot clearer to stop putting the Debian name on them at all. That's one of my reasons for voting for the resolution. Anthony has said that they *are* part of the debian project, but not part of the debian distribution. A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is maybe the only asset debian really has ? Volunteer time is not owned by Debian. We have no control over volunteer time, and we cannot assign tasks to persons. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you. Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains this word. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to clarify what that purpose is. In any case, I have no idea what you think this discussion is going to profit. Is there some aspect of my position that is unclear or some question you think I haven't answered? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:59:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you. Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains this word. Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a pork, or something such. The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. And given the degree of insult i have in the past received by the non-free removal supporters in the past, Branden and Assufield in the front of it, i would most prefer that you refrain from vulgarities when you address yourself to me, in the same way that myself, and i suppose many non native english speakers, refrain from using those words, because we don't clearly understand the degree of offensiveness they carry (or not). And if you don't care about not native english speakers, i seriously doubt what you have to do with debian, which is clearly a multi national and multi lingual organisation. Please go create your own, english-only, pure debian fork or something. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it. Yeah, sure. But your words seemed to imply that the social contract never contained section 5. Revisionism won't help you here, i think. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that But when i was accepted in the debian project, the social contract clearly said that if i wanted to package non-free packages, they would be distributed by the debian infrastructure. This is a promise the project made to me, as i made the promise to agree with the social contract. Changing it now is a break of thrust, especially as the presence in non-free doesn't in any way cause disconfort to you, while its absense will cause more work to me. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a pork, or something such. When you don't know a word, look it up. This is so basic. The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. This is not my problem. I cannot predict which words you will find hard, and if you can't be bothered to look them up in the dictionary--a dictionary carried by Debian, no less--then that's your problem, not mine. And if you don't care about not native english speakers, i seriously doubt what you have to do with debian, which is clearly a multi national and multi lingual organisation. Please go create your own, english-only, pure debian fork or something. Where on earth did I say I don't care about non-native English speakers? I said that your problem is not one I could solve, but I did point you to a resource that you could use to help solve it. Yeah, sure. But your words seemed to imply that the social contract never contained section 5. Revisionism won't help you here, i think. Where did I say that? Good grief, the problem isn't with your ability to understand English, though you have hid behind that for years. It's that you spend a lot of time guessing what people think, telling them (wrongly) what they think, and all the rest. If you want to understand my position, just ask me. It's offensive to dictate to me what my position must be and then think you've understood it. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But when i was accepted in the debian project, the social contract clearly said that if i wanted to package non-free packages, they would be distributed by the debian infrastructure. This is a promise the project made to me, as i made the promise to agree with the social contract. Changing it now is a break of thrust, especially as the presence in non-free doesn't in any way cause disconfort to you, while its absense will cause more work to me. No, it's not a breach of trust. You were never promised that the SC would never change, and if you can no longer participate in the project with it changed, then that's your decision. Stay or go, I don't care which. I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want to break that promise? Or perhaps you could ratchet down the rhetoric, and stop accusing me of dishonesty and trying to control you and all the rest. Nor did Debian ever promise that whatever non-free packages you would want be supported by the infrastructure. Debian does not promise to any developer that their package will be carried, free or non-free. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. And given the degree of insult i have in the past received by the non-free removal supporters in the past, Branden and Assufield in the front of it, ^^^ Heh, now you're being offensive in a subtle way ;) Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December. elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I filed bug #221761 after a debian-legal discussion pointed it out. I find it hard to track down bugs for removed packages, so I've not checked the rest of your list now. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #include hallo.h #include no-cc.txt hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
still more questions for the candidates
Hi, I have some questions I'd like to ask the candidates: Branden: You have been seen by many in the past as an abrasive developer. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever faulted your technical ability, but your manner has sometimes come under fire. Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the representative of Debian to the world would you try to moderate your tone, or do you believe that it wouldn't be a problem? I have seen some of your dealings as treasurer of SPI, and I have to admit that your tone there was never anything but exemplary that I saw. So given that you have proven yourself capable of this, do you believe that your reputation might affect how people outside the project see and deal with you? Your platform[1] mentions that you plan to look at release management and NM. It doesn't give any details at all though. Do you have any specific ideas in mind? From my reading of your platform you intend to bring about some (many?) procedural changes as well as clarification and formalisation of existing procedures. You mention things like revamping the constitution and proposing GRs to effect change and improve visibility. One of my concerns with your platform is that we will be swamped under procedural details and not have much time left for technical excellence. How would you address this concern? How many and which of the ideas outlined in your platform do you expect to be able to implement and/or work towards if you are NOT elected? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? Do you believe that if either Martin or Gergely are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform? Gergely: I have a tamagotchi too! He's called Foo (I have a limited imagination) Why is your tamagotchi more suited to running the project and being world dictator than mine? How do I get inside the shopkeeper's safe so I can get that credit note? What do we spend the profit on? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? Do you believe that if either Branden or Martin are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform[2]? Martin: Your platform[3] contains a lot of references to your organisational skills and your people skills. I appreciate that last year you attended a lot of conferences too. You *do* mention transparency and accountability as well, but you're not nearly as focused on it as Branden is. Do you see it as less important? You posted several Bits from the DPL over the past year. I found them informative and interesting, however they did at times feel like just an itinerary of the conferences you were visiting, mostly outward looking. Do you plan to continue them? If so would do you plan to change the direction of them to make them more inward looking? One of the dangers of being a successful conciliator is that you can become the first rather than last resort in cases of dispute. Do you think that this has been or will become a problem? It appears to me that the technical committee has fallen into disuse. Do you believe that this is due to there just not being any issues for them to look at, because they have lost the faith and respect of the developer body. because they are an anachronism and no longer useful, or some other reason I've not suggested? QA maintains an almost staggering number of packages. I am on the QA list, and I see almost daily the amount of organisational work you put into our QA effort. Do you think that we need to take a more proactive stance in removing unmaintained packages from the archive? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? How many and which of the ideas outlined in your platform do you expect to be able to implement and/or work towards if you are NOT elected? Do you believe that if either Branden or Gergley are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform? [1]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/branden [2]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/algernon [2]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/tbm Thank you all for your time and consideration, Stephen -- Stephen Stafford | Development and support consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.clothcat.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Never put off until tomorrow what you can [EMAIL PROTECTED] | con someone into doing for you today This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]: hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Of course they do, but they have different primary goals, eg. produce the hardware product in this century, make it good enough to sell enough of it. Or do you prefer hardware that is 10 times slower or incompatible to what 95% of the market uses, beeing 200% more expensive? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? Huch? I did never say ALL. [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. A-Ha. Looking at the tree most-known CD seller in my country (Lehmanns, LinuxLand, Schlittermann), I guess that 90% of the sold media actually contain non-free software. And moving the non-free tree to another server just to draw a line for no real reasons sounds a bit childish to me. Regards, Eduard. -- Ein Blinder und ein Tauber wollen sich duellieren. Sagt der Blinde: Ist der Taube schon da? Sagt der Taube: Hat der Blinde schon geschossen? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004. Votes must be received by Sunday, March 21 23:59:59 UTC 2004. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to decide on future handling of the non-free section. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (replying to this mail may work, but please check the headers). Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Details of the choices are as follows. Cease Active support of the non-free section: The text of the GR is: - -- The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. - -- Re-affirm support for non-free. The text of the GR is: - -- It is proposed that the Debian project resolve that: Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages. - -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. - -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEBCJocRBACttrD7MBCuI3HurNs5WZJL/WDjvuVeGZzDLzPzJZsvaReJsc79 vLb4SUjnExtjAUFUHbbwa+9uN/9ko0dOX31a7DbQYUA+4GGGn9ET5ewotjndK6Ag +sFxF0Ew6KLT3ckCEdqix3X/BOvTuuVkpJkr3kQVmJGbaC8AteBnmr1U/wCgl+km 20JlnykcHWNyL85hofuP6xkD/jATylb2OZTRareDhhjx9mTCm3eCK1CRb+JsHRqU YIYphHXD7ko4U/Rn5pzpiqG+hawbqZjzXYAXIYkAP3sY4xofFAXAbDdeNjPJbFKu p0pA2fxooDHt82TWNvY8II1nbsv3Q+1mKACzbQi9xQd8CqHFRl8Icpm3eI3ZSY5x tAtzA/9oWPis7Dg5LD4o3qdVavzT9w4UghaaGm1vD5F1Dh4mlUTIaSwRd1Nv11/4 +O+2RWo/SV5cyJzaCYzuy7/3g8d2bt95phoIs3BHW5DNhTkoIPYdLqdYT7vUQUvF FL5AToHV0vDwVJp0PEcANgDK7WZ4hfIQnKPDo5123TYYYNUc+rYAAABpVGhlIE5v bi1mcmVlIEdSIHZvdGUga2V5IChUaGlzIGlzIGEgdGVtcG9yYXJ5IGtleSBrZXB0 IG9uIGEgcHVibGljIG1hY2hpbmUpIDxncl9ub25fZnJlZUB2b3RlLmRlYmlhbi5v cmc+iGQEExECACQFAkBCJocCGwMFCQA3XwAGCwkIBwMCAxUCAwMWAgECHgECF4AA CgkQACBy5ant7TjPFgCfQaBrdDg+w0aoHgpjIRzfCNQtMT4AnA4YZLgJVbgCknCK 3BCnicCH/wEaiEwEEBECAAwFAkBCThgFgwA3N28ACgkQIbrau78kQkyZ2QCg1OR+ QrytdYGRp9M9cRpgrXmqKiEAoO3YtIhdtULjQkmYc9vEAUJCRMM2uQENBEBCJogQ BAC26p2kIJ6YsmenK6YlexkHCPR3ebmXrQV5Noh3bttplWQ4O86zuR5AtGuXoDll YqqYi7IDUjCSxS/Lecfcjt6VY3T9W0YogFnVVNP/dcG/mjf1MstxUqVADLai6BC7 vNht9qQnLV24V2GYxQnXSDd5VjW+CGm9OArSkJxJuw2k2wADBQP+MLabtXClKNOm eT6l54fVsEhIjUqQ7mx1BJGz1ey+CCgCbRsmKjlmZRDMay6VxhCN1MAY9VaRwrU4 z2efBq4NXBtO+XolbqKc0d3Ml7ruzksM+POhu1sAXeHq4qNhtx3xO4/j+otWuwYJ qYIVGns0GpD4vo965iToq7xCqqyS2M6ITwQYEQIADwUCQEImiAIbDAUJADdfAAAK CRAAIHLlqe3tOINiAJ0WLR1hrgW0OouuzFHersDF1L49RACdG4h4HrEGsw9NueKr P2qUfOV5nfw= =Evd7 -
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, Actually, I think that only #1 is not trivial, in the case of reassigning bugs between main and non-free. Now personally, I don't believe that there are a lot of examples for this, but I don't have any data to back this up. I asked Colin Watson about this some days ago, and he said it would be rather difficult to get hard data on this. Personally I think split BTSs is reason enough not to split the distribution. [..] Now, ad 2.: That's pretty easy, just use the debian-keyring to authenticate and perhaps (but that's outside the scope of what debian.org can set as policy) also let identified people with a trustpath to a DD contribute, possibly requiring being recommended by an AM in the NM process. That's purely a social problem, the technology is there. ad 3.: You'd have a BTS for this, just as for the real Debian. However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might decide to install all their software in /opt. What about filename clashes between main and non-free.org packages? I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution. Well, *I* will definetely not upload non-free packages to ftp.debian.org, simply to prevent the strenghtening of it. While I'd Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though. Well, dunno. For me, removing non-free from ftp.debian.org is an ethical imperative I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acknowledgement for your vote
Hi, -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org hQGOA89zfVvCjcxCEAX/Xfvn+mjO2bOjur3SD2okBQytyh6HFLVGMOC04G0Ywr4H mxwdj+KciJAXxPybIISXB4Ne5KYyIq9xoIr83ejEencEJ/ndS07rlQ2Pgg4KG0G1 WYxvccwlC9MSh2C04XmOtWNbZ9Sgwsocg8Cq6FMM954WqIsgwhFGsekAr82/F36N KoTmHVvBwwDTf5rmAXgVXbyqeXWDj6GSizMMRDCvn6hyzzUTDKOHGFJiF3ir1qoZ QRNiEy7Yhk1RnAI2fuwrBf9PmyPisAER2szXapnDIh6qwgKEmyemsAkCaDCqwdz1 OLWRmp8uI2aNaJabThP/1AtFBkaauBbwXhUQWy593HPZLJ+K5680XVXjrAxj0kdb 7oQvar/HOxIzhY7tjnJ7Lj6ev0DbT3a5//tzSQ3ONQY/r9KHmSFjw8WAYLQnFo7J LzVu4m+XcZ1KDWCOhy4fTCk3xWYnrq5GPBGViqJqUnvnGkfb4Ka2cxL7Dq3fMrDh UYEsUBUd57OBJAH1Gzte0HnSwRQBVNKjQ3vmsRjmcrdXj9Ic2tAuWEFo+sQyWaij Us6e62ALAVHo/iPsQTOS2CHDb4mYsHKSrVdjw62DE0bchT+wKb1bGRxbG+Or1Bzm h2E+d17X13ofulNgIQ9WNK6yArMpC49ifhIFPLhNOsbbEDa3LrubPaeyZj68gNlg sXNVVfCVZP9I4JGBApRdOGHwRQPL5O0UdK4KFtQ1R+G8GvpmE34CmQjk8HYvmVqV 2lq9rfFVsU6xUfE+cYPM+p4DN1tE0/A7Iim1HsCuD3sbxMJK9oW07AodKFwpRppG rtxEI4evzpjLazOXEZ8DQ7M4UxK8N4VDvTmxlUKlGn1oBa4KI8WY4EkREuPt93qN hNcjpRezrups7WS06JhuUDmeaeZe06JzNzYpa5Fa0PoyPXlo4Jj1cewxhxVz0/gl bZd/d10jc4U4xt+xmmoW5VoKDuPPZ38/3ysXiLhJxWDluHN2JR7J5ANUaX8obqM6 omwGf+gWLsTDO/DgYbEM2ZrfLWWsG1/rwxtoGO138HV88a2AYaKUZyhB6LRJsKWT 2b/tYzqrbioNwj6v0zZH+x1LKeL1RYoRqscF8+rtMZScPiSFlnzY7eG56GTRjlwr 3hggBfcnCh4= =lOQN -END PGP MESSAGE- -- Debian Project secretary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Acknowledgement for your vote
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:41:03PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org [snip] Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted. But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now and replaced? Anand. -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Acknowledgement for your vote
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004, Anand Kumria wrote: Fantastic, so we know Christian has voted. But aren't ELG-E keys supposed to be de-activated by now and replaced? no. ElGamal signing != ElGamal encryption. (20 vs 17) Peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred.| : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might decide to install all their software in /opt. I'm assuming that the partisons of non-free on Debian have an interest in there being a secure and safe non-free thing. If they do, then they can build it. If nobody has that interest, then there's no need to have the thing. I mean, which is it? Important or not? The point is that Debian's infrastructure is not necessary to providing it, for anyone who wants to. The status quo doesn't guarantee the same thing either. I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution. The Debian distribution already is 100% free software. What are we splitting? I think that your case would be a lot stronger if you all could manage to follow your own rhetoric correctly. We aren't splitting a distribution at all. But the fact that it's so easy that someone as well-plugged-in as you can confuse the Debian distribution with what is on the debian servers is a good sign that the current compromise is not working. Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though. Nothing in the resolution says you shouldn't. I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Is there a time at which it would be right to make non-free disappear even though there is still some set of developers that want it? If so, what are the signs to look for that we have reached such a time? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 08:10:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Is there a time at which it would be right to make non-free disappear even though there is still some set of developers that want it? If so, what are the signs to look for that we have reached such a time? When a GR is conducted and the winner(s) are those who wish to remove non-free. Hopefully you've already submitted you vote so this discussion can be put to rest (for now). Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Anand Kumria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When a GR is conducted and the winner(s) are those who wish to remove non-free. Hopefully you've already submitted you vote so this discussion can be put to rest (for now). Hehe. Indeed; I submitted my vote so fast it seemed to have beaten the vote system being fully on-line. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:55:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. Except that there will probably always be non-free software, and even if the amount on debian.org goes to zero, it might go positive the next week. That's quite possible. A plausible explanation for it might be an exponentially decreasing amount of useful non-free software, say N = 300 * 2^(-t/104) with an error of 50%, and t measured in weeks. Sure, once you get to week 752, you might actually drop to zero packages, then rise again a couple of weeks later because of the error factor. But with that trend, by the time you hit week 917, you're guaranteed to never have another non-free package again. I think it'd probably be reasonable to drop non-free at around week 650 when we're only going to be affecting a handful of packages, or possibly earlier, in the case, but the mere possibility of some fluctuation isn't a problem even if we decided to only remove non-free once we were confident there'd *never* be any useful non-free software needing packaging. Really? What is it? What is the system for removing packages from non-free? The maintainer says this package is no longer needed or this packages has been relicensed under the GPL or similar, and it gets removed. What did you think it was? I believe this is an inadequate system. What do you think of a compromise position which would allow a package in non-free only if there is no free package filling the same niche? That's the system we've already got -- people don't like maintaining non-free software, so when there really is some free software that fills the same niche, it gets dropped by the maintainer. If you'd like to do QA work making sure that happens more promptly than it does atm, please do. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to clarify what that purpose is. Its purpose is to create a first class free operating system, and support the users of that operating system. We currently do that by doing everything we can to support users needs; even if that means distributing non-free software. Those concepts are explained in both the social contract and the constitution, and aren't particularly ambiguous. You're seeking to _change_ how we go about that purpose, not clarify anything. There's nothing immoral in that, and in particular there's no need to pretend otherwise. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:58:25PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: His point is that this time is not time you spend on Debian, but on some non-free packages that happen to be distributed by Debian right now. How is that different to saying that the time you spend on Debian isn't just time on some random scientific packages that happen to be distributed by Debian right now? Sven's actions make it easier for people who need non-free software to use Debian, and thus contribute back to Debian, either by supporting other users, or filing bugs against free packages, or whatever else. So, just as Debian can not set restrictions on what you do in your non-Debian time, you cannot set restrictions on how Debian should help you with your non-Debian activities. As a developer he has just as much right to set restrictions on how Debian behaves as you do, for whatever reason. Suggesting otherwise as you've just done is fundamentally wrong on about a handful of levels. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to clarify what that purpose is. Its purpose is to create a first class free operating system, and support the users of that operating system. We currently do that by doing everything we can to support users needs; even if that means distributing non-free software. Those concepts are explained in both the social contract and the constitution, and aren't particularly ambiguous. I'm a little unclear on how a first class free operating system can be non-free. I guess that's the central problem here. You're seeking to _change_ how we go about that purpose, not clarify anything. There's nothing immoral in that, and in particular there's no need to pretend otherwise. Sure, there is no confusion here that the proposal I'm arguing for includes an amendment to the social contract. I am undecided about whether that amendment is necessary to the other part of the proposal. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep non-free proposal
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think it'd probably be reasonable to drop non-free at around week 650 when we're only going to be affecting a handful of packages, or possibly earlier, in the case, but the mere possibility of some fluctuation isn't a problem even if we decided to only remove non-free once we were confident there'd *never* be any useful non-free software needing packaging. So your position is that we should have non-free for as long as there is any doubt whatsoever if there will ever be a package to place in it? I mean, you talk at first in what I've quoted here as if there were some point at which we could remove it despite there being a handful of packages, but you seem to take that back and suggest that we really shouldn't remove it unless there are not only no packages in it, but we must also be confident there never will be again. And I don't know how we could ever have that confidence, unless the copyright laws get changed, because someone could always write something and make it non-free but distributable. Perhaps I've misunderstood. Is there some minimal number of packages such that if we have only that small number, we can disregard them and close down non-free, in your opinion? That's the system we've already got -- people don't like maintaining non-free software, so when there really is some free software that fills the same niche, it gets dropped by the maintainer. If you'd like to do QA work making sure that happens more promptly than it does atm, please do. In practice, this is not true. Often there is a different maintainer, who continues to maintain it because he likes it, completely independent of whether there is a free alternative. Netscape did not get dropped because free web browsers became available; it got dropped because there was an irredeemable security flaw. So what you describe is a nice theory, and maybe it would be satisfactory if it happened, but it does not seem to be a very common pattern. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why Anthony Towns is wrong
Anthony Towns has been arguing that the non-free archive really *is* part of Debian, that while it isn't part of the Debian Distribution, it is obviously a part of the system as a whole. This disregards the current text of the Social Contract section 5, which is very clear that the non-free archives are not part of the Debian system and that non-free software isn't a part of Debian. Anthony and Sven and others have recently found it very hard to preserve this illusion, because they themselves speak of removing non-free from Debian, which strongly suggests that they have essentially decided to ignore what the Social Contract section 5 says about this. So which is it? Are you going to start speaking more precisely, and stop acting as if it's pedantic to insist that non-free is not now part of Debian? If the get rid of non-free resolution fails, then it will still remain true that non-free is not part of the Debian system, and is indeed not part of Debian. So, Sven, Anthony, Bdale, will you join me in correcting users who think that non-free is part of Debian? Will you commit to not saying any more that it is? Will you not speak as if the non-free packages ever were part of Debian? It is my conviction that Social Contract paragraph 5 represents a compromise position. And that compromise has essentially all but broken down. At least the proposers of the resolution have the honesty to say it has; the opponents seem to want to say it's just fine, while they ignore the part of the compromise they don't like. I think we need to get rid of paragraph 5 entirely. It's purpose has long since been served; and those who would like it to remain are themselves not happy with the compromise. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
I find the following paragraph confusing. Is the number entered to be between 1 and 4, or 1 and 3? By example, if I have three options, a, b, and c, and I like a, am ambivalent about b, and dislike c, how should I mark the three options? Please cc me in your reply. Thanks, Shaun On Sun March 7, 2004 16h55, Debian Project Secretary wrote: In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown? Have you left the project? No? Then why are you asking that question? -- Matthias Urlichs
My testimonial about skuper viakgra manual disjointed
wedlock dragging Pomona brewing readied Sergio Hoffmann, 25 y.o. psychotherapist, Germany: I think i'm younkger than main target group of Cialdis consumers, but i have a very hard work, i always had to listen about people's failures, about bad life et cetera. gibberish Mitch pivotal All that problems affected my selxual activity, my wife was not as happy as before with me. relates bottomless sociable pillared mating I tried Viargas - both genedric and Pfdizer's, but they does not act as good and as long as i want it to be. Malta rebutting reasonings alcoholism embarrass Finally, my colleague told me about Cialdis and i ordered it. The results were really better, trust a doctor. animatedly medallions piles I'd recommend it to anybody with erectlion troubles. snowflake accident threads benches smelled layout skirt spinal prowlers gleams Follow this link for more info | EnRTE HERR handcuff orbitally frail total Charta tearing newherbs [dot] com / sv / applepie [dot] php <--- t0 be 0p t-0utDouglass lifted themselves typesetter ascribable
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result. Are you assuming that all men will do this? Note the word may. The men who do might well be operating from a negative stereotype of women. But it sounds to me as if you are countering with your own negative stereotype of men. You know, that mail clearly shows that you're part of the problem here. The fear she talks about is _hardly_ uncommon. It's the reason why there are women-only computer courses, for example. I would certainly argue that the fear is mostly unfounded, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's a cultural thing -- have you ever spent any time in a typical high school science class? *Ugh*. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational arguments. If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim), then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence. Umm, that logic works here because the meta-argument and the meta-meta-argument are actually about the same topic (rational arguments). In real-world examples, it is quite easy to sustain the Gerbil Hypothesis: you simply assert that the conclusion the supposed gerbil arrives at is invalid. We've had quite a few examples of this kind of argument on -devel recently. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:10:26PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So that does mean, that this argument is not one you (and Mj Ray) think are the reason for moving non-free out of the debian archive ? It might or might not happen that way. I believe that non-free should be removed from Debian regardless. I've told you my reasons. Ok, thanks for confirming this. I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. reason why it's good. No, but it is nice to distinuguish the two things in the argumentation for the removal of non-free. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate non-free.org archive? Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's different. Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. What does it change in the long run? It stops having the debian name attached to non-free packages, it stops debian being a distributor of non-free packages, and it stops the use of debian resources to support the non-free packages. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part nonetheless. And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be, isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it. In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ? Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. What it changes is Debian doing this other distracting thing, which is not part of the Debian distribution: maintaining the non-free archive on our resources, and distributing it in a way which causes users to become mistaken and think it's part of Debian. Over debian developers doing this more distracting thing: maintaining a more costly alternative non-free archive with our own ressource and distributing, in a way which is separate from debian only in name, and even then, all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think. nothing else. You have already described the current state as one in which non-free is part of Debian--indicating that the compromise position we thought we had has more or less entirely broken down. Anthony Towns as well has now said that the compromise is meaningless. Yeah, and ? Do you really think this may change once non-free is moved to non-free.org ? Please be serious. Yes. People will still be confused perhaps, but I believe that an awful lot fewer will do. Yeah, please bring forward a study showing your fact. your belief is of not help here. And, you conveniently forget about section 5 of our social contract, which you agreed to when you became a debian maintainer, and now that you don't need netscape anymore or whatever other non-free package, you want to get ride of it. I haven't proposed getting rid of any packages. Removing non-free from the Debian servers doesn't mysteriously cause the bits to vanish. Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult, this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:48:38AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:14:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you really believe having a non-free archive on the debian infrastructure is in any way different than having a separate non-free.org archive? Yes. How many times do I have to answer this question? Yes, it's different. Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. People who think that apt-get.org is part of Debian are so far off already that it makes no difference. There will always be people with strange views, we should optimize for the common case. And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, compared to apt-get.org or backports.org or whatever. But really, I don't see why it's necessary to argue about all this. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. That's a really slipperly slope here. What if Debian Developers in proprietary companies make non-free binary .deb packages for their companies products, would that still be part of the Debian project? What about other unofficial stuff, like .debs on people.debian.org, or backports at www.backports.org? Is that 'part of the debian project'? Where do you draw the line? And, what do you think of people who need to run 3D graphics, or need to run java? They will go to apt-get.org, which is as debian as it can be, isn't it, carrying the apt-gte name, and download the third party package. Or go to non-free and use it, or go to non-free.org and get it. In how far does this improve the freeness of debian for these users ? Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. s/who don't like non-free packages/who don't like the Debian project to be associated with non-free packages/ all those people who think apt-get.org is part of debian will not see a difference. And those who do, i guess they are smart enough to see debian/non-free as separate from debian/main, don't you think. I find your reasoning highly irrational. 'Who thinks that apt-get is part of Debian will believe non-free.org is part of Debian, too. Those who don't will also believe that debian/non-free is seperate from debian/main'. I don't believe this is true at all. Please show evidence that people think apt-get.org is part of the Debian project first, before you use this as a carte blanche. Yes, you have proposed making my life, as packager of a non-free package, which incidentally i need to do my debian work, more difficult, this diminishing my time i could otherwise dedicate to debian. If you can't cope with uploading stuff to non-free.org instead to ftp.debian.org, I can't help you. I really fail to see how this would be so difficult at all. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:15:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:45:39AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:24:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but that this isn't it. You are saying that any time a maintainer wants to put a non-free package on the Debian server, this should be possible. You are proposing no change, ever. No, I'm proposing we change when everyone's writing free software, because the recognise that it's the best way of doing development and there's no benefit, short term or long term to them in doing anything else. Including Microsoft and nVidia. I don't have any particular concern if this doesn't happen within my lifetime. Right, but that's no change. We don't have to do anything to have non-free vanish with the last package in it. That's the *current* system. You can't argue for a change by saying that the current system's no good because it's the current system. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: I didn't say that, but apparently the thread has been lost. Well, yes, of course the thread's been lost -- you just trimmed it all away. Read through the above with an open mind -- ie, don't assume that everyone thinks the way you expect them to. Sven implied that there is a time for removing non-free, but this isn't it. We change when everyone's writing free software. But that's no change. That's the current system. There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. What he seemed to be saying was that the fact that we distribute non-free software needs to and should change. And it does need to, and it should. But we have a system for dealing with that already. Really? What is it? What is the system for removing packages from non-free? The maintainer says this package is no longer needed or this packages has been relicensed under the GPL or similar, and it gets removed. What did you think it was? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. But what if two weeks later some maintainer sees the need for a new non-free package? Will we start distributing non-free again? Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. Anyone surely includes people who are maintainers, considering almost everyone who's covered by the Debian constitution is a maintainer. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided by the Debian project. If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous terminology. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:12:04PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:55:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. But what if two weeks later some maintainer sees the need for a new non-free package? Will we start distributing non-free again? I don't think that's a concern -- by the time we get down to there only being a handful of non-free packages that any of our users might want, I doubt any of them will be worthwhile enough to justify the extra admin burden, small as that is. Whether that be four packages or six packages or whatever isn't likely to be a big problem in practice, since by the time Microsoft and nVidia and similar companies are writing free software, the only stuff that isn't going to be free is going to be pretty pointless and easily replaced. At any rate it's a question we don't have to deal with now, and it's a question better dealt with once we know what the few remaining packages worth having in non-free actually are. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
Hy! I'm using Debian GNU/Linux now for 3 years as my only Operating System and i have read almost the complete discussion here about non-free. I think it could be useful to read the view of a normal user about this issue because i think the discussion is sometime at a high level of rhetoric words and not on the level which relate to the normal users. First what i don't really understand is, at one point people says non-free isn't part of the Debian OS (that's what also says the Debian SC) but at the other hand some people argue that Debian have to provide the user non-free programs if they need it. But how can Debian provide this software to there user if it isn't part of the Debian OS? Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Now look deeper in the Debian OS. If i install Debian, the installer asked me if i want to include non-free in my source-list. If the Debian OS have no non-free, why the installer asked me about? Than i install some packages and apt-get suggested me non-free software, why? I think the whole discussion about this is a lot rhetoric blabla if you can suggest or recommend non-free packages or not. If Debian don't provide non-free Software and also says it will be a 100% free Operating System than it shouldn't recommend or suggest the user non-free packages. Than i try to find some package from the Debian OS in the Package database on the Debian homepage, and what i see? The database searches by default also in the non-free archive! Look at all these point and tell me, without just rhetoric blabla, why a user should think that non-free isn't part of the Debian OS? I think there are no arguments on the realistic level of users which fits the reality how non-free packages are treated at the moment. Now how does this encourage people to use more ore less non-free software: I have seen a lot Debian user (i am also in the past) which just install every packet which is recommend or suggested just to have all installed which is in any form part of the software i have originally installed. Even if i will never use this feature just to know that i can do everything which is possible with the software package. This leads people to non-free software, even if they don't really need it, Debian shouldn't encourage people to install non-free software. Also a lot of people install programs like the adobe acrobat-reader just because they know him from there last operating system or from school, business, what ever... I have explained why most people think non-free es part of the Debian OS and why the most user have non-free in there source-list, so they just see that there is an acrobat-reader so they installed it. They don't even think about it, that there is also other alternatives which are free and fit there needs too. If they wouldn't find by default this non-free program they would maybe search for pdf viewer and would find the free alternatives which fit there needs. Another example would be mpg123 vs. mpg321. Many Debian user recommend you mpg123 if you ask for a console mpg-player, so the most people wouldn't think about it and install it although there would be a free replacement with mpg321. There would be more examples but i think that is enough to show you the arguments. I just think that if an apt-get install a_non-free_program would say no package available the user would search for a package which does something simular and maybe find someone. I think that's the right way, because so Debian leads the user to free Software and not to non-free Software. Often i read the argument that Debian have to help people to use there computer, with free and non-free Software. But how far does this help goes? I think Debian GNU/Linux is an open and free operation system everyone can study it and insert new features or programs whether free or non-free. Everyone can learn how to build a Debian package, so it's free to everyone to build Debian package from non-free programs. I think that's more than enough help, which you can become from a operating system which goal is Free Software and not non-free software! One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe true or not. But i think if you define the goal of Debian to create an 100% free operating system thats not a problem for Debian. If there is no non-free, than you are a DD if you work on the Debian OS which is only free Software. If you want also package non-free packages no one can and will stop you doing this. But this will nothing have to do with your job as DD. There will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
Markus wrote: Now how the situation looks from a user viewpoint. I think for the most user non-free is part of the Debian OS. Let me explain why: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: Markus wrote: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Then i would say it is definitely a step forward. But i doesn't mean the default source.list in my message above. I mean something like I have accidentally deleted my source.list, can you tell me how a normal Debian GNU/Linux source list looks? This kind of question were answered to 99% in Debian or GNU/Linux user forums with source.list entries which contain contrib and non-free just because for the most users non-free is part of the Debian OS, as i have explained in my above message more detailed.
Re: keep non-free proposal
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:17:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: If you really want to reduce confusion, stop misusing ambiguous terminology. That's part of what this proposal is all about. When we've dropped non-free, it's just Debian, no need to differentiate between 'Debian', 'the Debian project', 'the Debian distribution' or 'the non-free component of the Debian distribution'. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. So? That's what I said. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. YMMV, and all that. My position is, though, that this is the way it works in many real-world communities also, and quite frankly I fail to see why it shouldn't work that way in Debian. I'll save the question whether my original mesage was _that_ difficult to understand for some other time if you don't mind. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:43:51PM +0100, Markus wrote: On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: Markus wrote: Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS source.list looks. The main answer will be: deb ftp:... main contrib non-free Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Yes. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. That's not what I said. I didn't say James wouldn't notice. I was talking about the public discussion ^w flame-fest on -devel. Since that didn't contain any message from James (the stuff Ingo quoted doesn't count) he simply wasn't visible. (There might have been the wrong word; sorry if that was misunderstandable.) -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result. Are you assuming that all men will do this? Note the word may. If it's to be taken as you suggest, then it's content-free. *Anyone* might do that. She seemed to be making some assumption beyond just the fact of the possibility. The fear she talks about is _hardly_ uncommon. It's the reason why there are women-only computer courses, for example. I didn't say it was uncommon. It's a good reason for Debian to worry about it and try to alleviate it. My question was different.
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. No. That would be to *passively* obstruct the rules, and such passive obstruction is allowed. For this reason the project needs to have things like an NMU procedure and a QA team to carry the slack when someone is inactive.
Re: keep non-free proposal
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, you say it has, but please provide some prove or at least argumentation of it, and the benefit it will bring, over the imagined benefit you believe in. And you haven't responded to the fact that this will make no difference to those users who think that apt-get.org is part of debian. It will not completely solve the problem, but nothing will. It will make a dent. That responds to the last sentence. I believe that there is an inherent benefit to having a 100% free operating system, and also to having systems which are devoted to free software. I believe that the Debian name should clearly and unequivocally stand for free software, and that this would only strengthen the organization. If we disagree, then we disagree, and we will all vote. I have long since given up trying to convince you; if what I have said already does not convince you, then probably nothing will. Fortunately, Debian will vote, and neither you nor I get a veto. Well, i would argue that if debian devel are involved in the maintaining of the non-free packages and the non-free infrastructure, then it seems evident that even if you don't attach the debian name to it, it is still part of the debian project. A distinct part from debian/main but a part nonetheless. This is hogwash. Debian developers are involved in the MIT Student Information Procession Board, but it doesn't follow that sipb is a part of debian--even when sipb makes .deb packages. Debian is already 100% Free Software. None of that changes the freeness of Debian; the proposal here has nothing to do with making Debian more or less free. No, it is for making cosmetic changes so as that those who don't like non-free packages are able to shut their eyes over reality. Are you calling me a liar? Thomas
Re: keep non-free proposal
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: And believing that ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free is part of Debian seems to be quite common, That's because it's true. That directory is part of a service provided by the Debian project. This is an excellent reason to get the name off of the service. I want the name Debian to be associated with free software. I'm willing to vote for that.
Re: keep non-free proposal
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: There _is_ a change: one day we're distributing non-free, the next, we're not. That's the important change. It's not a change of policy, certainly, it's instead a claim that the *existing* policy does *not* need to be changed to meet the concern that Debian will always be distributing non-free software. Except that there will probably always be non-free software, and even if the amount on debian.org goes to zero, it might go positive the next week. Really? What is it? What is the system for removing packages from non-free? The maintainer says this package is no longer needed or this packages has been relicensed under the GPL or similar, and it gets removed. What did you think it was? I believe this is an inadequate system. What do you think of a compromise position which would allow a package in non-free only if there is no free package filling the same niche?
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Peter Samuelson wrote: All your pontificating about data and proof is a fine way to avoid the actual issue under discussion, which is that a social system (the Debian Project) is exhibiting the same symptom (fairly extreme under-representation of women) as other systems which have been studied and are similar to the Project in other ways. Well while we're pontificating...to what extent _is_ Debian a social system? It has one big fat signifier of being one -- a written social contract. It has some procedures, in-jokes (i.e. duelling banjos) and specialized vocabulary (ITP, debianize etc.) But on the other hand there is very little agreement on anything other than the desire to create a free, technically excellent operating system. And even there, there is disagreement on how free is free. A good number of made members of Debian don't even bother voting in project leader elections (I believe the turnout last year was 58%,) at the other extreme a group making a cd of open source software for Windows adopted the Debian Free Software Guidelines as their criteria even though they have nothing to do formally with Debian at all. How would you classify both poles in terms of being part of the Debian social system? Some developers just fix bugs in their packages as reports come in and thats it. Others breath, eat, and sleep Debian. I think most developers start with the former and progress (though usually not all the way!) towards the latter. The requirement to have a key signed by an existing developer which was adopted several years encouraged this trend. Now we have more frequent face-to-face meetings (such as debconf,) things like Planet Debian etc. which help put a more human face on those From: lines. Things of this nature would do a lot to decrese the levels of aggression. For instance one of the reasons I was able to shrug off Manoj's vituperation was because I've never seen him before and care not a whit what he thinks of me. Conversely, those Debianites who've met me might accuse me of a lot of things but being a big bag of dripping hacker testosterone is not going to be one of them. (I'm more like the guy smiling in the back of the photo. The one people know but can't remember the name of. But I digress.) If we knew each other better both of our reactions would be likely to be rather different. Here's the fly in the ointment though. While increasing the effectiveness of the Debian social system would help break down some barriers, it would raise others to people who already have extensive investment in other social systems. Any talk of representation has to take that into account. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote: OK. Last I heard, irc.debian.org #debian is a project resource. Here is an example of how women are treated in Debian; Ok at last we're at least moving into the realm of empirical data and I thank you for that but I must say you are engaging in a little rhetorical sleight of hand here over the words in Debian It has already been mentioned by others that very few Debian developers (arguably one good definition of what comprises Debian) ever go there. One could also note that a high proportion of IRC users in general are asshats and women get that sort of treatment almost everywhere. Which still makes it a problem but not a Debian specific one. Here are some other examples of how women are treated in Debian. In January 2003 (picked at random) there were 1601 posts to the debian-user mailing list. 55 of those (3.5%) were from female-sounding names as far as I can tell. No incidents of harrasment or condescencion occurred. Is this the true face of Debian? In the same month 2002 posts were made to debian-devel. 1 was by a woman. This month was notable for the Jack Howarth is a fucking idiot thread. Is this the true face of Debian? During the time period including this month Karolina Lindqvist made .debs for KDEs' CVS snapshots. This was done outside the official Debian framework altogether but they were very popular with Debian KDE users (including myself.) Is this the true face of Debian? I haven't kept any hard figures on it but in the four years I've been at the Debian booth at LinuxWorld in New York we've consistently had greater than 3.5% of the visitors be women (I would estimate about 20% but see caveat above.) None of them to my recollection have ever been snubbed or talked down too. Is this the true face of Debian? The fallacy in your use of Debian is that you assume there is a fixed idea of the boundaries of Debian and that everyone thinks it is at the same place as you. Lastly, since you mentioned it (and mentioned it, and mentioned it) In the month of November 2003 (I'd had a hard drive crash earlier that year that makes January data unavailable) I wrote or responded to 125 emails in relation to Debian matters. Of those 4 were from women (Curiously also 3.5% statistical fluke or trend?) Actually one woman but the thread included aw, you're a dear and I'm delighted it was resolved so quickly. Pretty good for a neanderthal eh? You are welcome to do additional research along these lines. I for one conclude there is no problem that concerns me. If you on the other hand still do, don't wait for Debian, have at it! You can solve it right now by signing Helens or some other womans GPG key, and sponsoring them through the new maintainer process. Or by setting an example as a paragon of politeness and civility. Sure I won't lift a finger to help but I won't lift one to hinder either so I shouldn't bother you because it's just as much an instance of Debian solving problems as anything else. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I see. So, since you did nothing wrong, does that mean that obviously Debian is not a hostile environment for women? That we have nothing to address? Could be. Or it could mean there is a problem but it is improperly described or means for testing it are inadequate. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see how _my_ failure to communicate with exactitude, and taking shortcuts, does in any way support your argumentation. It is not a unclarity of my thoughts and feeling, just a failure to bring this clearly into words. And you choose to attack me on the form rather than on the content. Huh? You asked what changes I thought it would make. It makes some change, a change which is very important to me, and of only minimal value to you. See above about that. They are not part of the debian project, but they are available on the debian archive, as a service to our users who need them. Ah, ok. Then I think it will be a lot clearer to stop putting the Debian name on them at all. That's one of my reasons for voting for the resolution. Anthony has said that they *are* part of the debian project, but not part of the debian distribution. A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is maybe the only asset debian really has ? Volunteer time is not owned by Debian. We have no control over volunteer time, and we cannot assign tasks to persons.
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you. Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains this word. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it.
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is maybe the only asset debian really has ? Volunteer time is not owned by Debian. We have no control over volunteer time, and we cannot assign tasks to persons. But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that you want to volunteer for. Debian has a purpose, and I seek to clarify what that purpose is. In any case, I have no idea what you think this discussion is going to profit. Is there some aspect of my position that is unclear or some question you think I haven't answered? Thomas
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:59:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea. Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a ^^^ Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps) have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers. The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you. Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains this word. Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a pork, or something such. The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. And given the degree of insult i have in the past received by the non-free removal supporters in the past, Branden and Assufield in the front of it, i would most prefer that you refrain from vulgarities when you address yourself to me, in the same way that myself, and i suppose many non native english speakers, refrain from using those words, because we don't clearly understand the degree of offensiveness they carry (or not). And if you don't care about not native english speakers, i seriously doubt what you have to do with debian, which is clearly a multi national and multi lingual organisation. Please go create your own, english-only, pure debian fork or something. And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive, even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably) signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for imaginary gain. The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it. Yeah, sure. But your words seemed to imply that the social contract never contained section 5. Revisionism won't help you here, i think. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:33:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 01:57:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: A, yes ? And the fact that debian ressource would be used for setting this alternative archive up and maintaining those packages is not to be considered ? Debian ressource in the form of volunteer time, which is maybe the only asset debian really has ? Volunteer time is not owned by Debian. We have no control over volunteer time, and we cannot assign tasks to persons. But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. His point is that this time is not time you spend on Debian, but on some non-free packages that happen to be distributed by Debian right now. So, just as Debian can not set restrictions on what you do in your non-Debian time, you cannot set restrictions on how Debian should help you with your non-Debian activities. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 02:37:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you are interfering by the time i should spend on things, in particular making it more difficult for me to maintain my non-free package ? A strange way of not interfering with my volunteer time. It is not Debian's job to help you with everything in your life that But when i was accepted in the debian project, the social contract clearly said that if i wanted to package non-free packages, they would be distributed by the debian infrastructure. This is a promise the project made to me, as i made the promise to agree with the social contract. Changing it now is a break of thrust, especially as the presence in non-free doesn't in any way cause disconfort to you, while its absense will cause more work to me. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, from my understanding, hogwash would be the washing water of a pork, or something such. When you don't know a word, look it up. This is so basic. The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. This is not my problem. I cannot predict which words you will find hard, and if you can't be bothered to look them up in the dictionary--a dictionary carried by Debian, no less--then that's your problem, not mine. And if you don't care about not native english speakers, i seriously doubt what you have to do with debian, which is clearly a multi national and multi lingual organisation. Please go create your own, english-only, pure debian fork or something. Where on earth did I say I don't care about non-native English speakers? I said that your problem is not one I could solve, but I did point you to a resource that you could use to help solve it. Yeah, sure. But your words seemed to imply that the social contract never contained section 5. Revisionism won't help you here, i think. Where did I say that? Good grief, the problem isn't with your ability to understand English, though you have hid behind that for years. It's that you spend a lot of time guessing what people think, telling them (wrongly) what they think, and all the rest. If you want to understand my position, just ask me. It's offensive to dictate to me what my position must be and then think you've understood it. Thomas
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But when i was accepted in the debian project, the social contract clearly said that if i wanted to package non-free packages, they would be distributed by the debian infrastructure. This is a promise the project made to me, as i made the promise to agree with the social contract. Changing it now is a break of thrust, especially as the presence in non-free doesn't in any way cause disconfort to you, while its absense will cause more work to me. No, it's not a breach of trust. You were never promised that the SC would never change, and if you can no longer participate in the project with it changed, then that's your decision. Stay or go, I don't care which. I was promised that Debian would remain 100% free software. You want to break that promise? Or perhaps you could ratchet down the rhetoric, and stop accusing me of dishonesty and trying to control you and all the rest. Nor did Debian ever promise that whatever non-free packages you would want be supported by the infrastructure. Debian does not promise to any developer that their package will be carried, free or non-free. Thomas
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: The main point is that i don't master the subtelties of the english language enough to clearly appreciate the degree of offensiveness which is meant by it. And given the degree of insult i have in the past received by the non-free removal supporters in the past, Branden and Assufield in the front of it, ^^^ Heh, now you're being offensive in a subtle way ;) Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
Re: keep non-free proposal
On 2004-03-06 10:20:44 + Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: elfutils was removed on the request of its maintainer on 9th December. elfutils is not an example of removal from non-free. It was in main. I filed bug #221761 after a debian-legal discussion pointed it out. I find it hard to track down bugs for removed packages, so I've not checked the rest of your list now. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
On 2004-03-06 18:00:54 + Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #include hallo.h #include no-cc.txt hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
still more questions for the candidates
Hi, I have some questions I'd like to ask the candidates: Branden: You have been seen by many in the past as an abrasive developer. Nobody (to my knowledge) has ever faulted your technical ability, but your manner has sometimes come under fire. Given that the DPL is, in many ways, the representative of Debian to the world would you try to moderate your tone, or do you believe that it wouldn't be a problem? I have seen some of your dealings as treasurer of SPI, and I have to admit that your tone there was never anything but exemplary that I saw. So given that you have proven yourself capable of this, do you believe that your reputation might affect how people outside the project see and deal with you? Your platform[1] mentions that you plan to look at release management and NM. It doesn't give any details at all though. Do you have any specific ideas in mind? From my reading of your platform you intend to bring about some (many?) procedural changes as well as clarification and formalisation of existing procedures. You mention things like revamping the constitution and proposing GRs to effect change and improve visibility. One of my concerns with your platform is that we will be swamped under procedural details and not have much time left for technical excellence. How would you address this concern? How many and which of the ideas outlined in your platform do you expect to be able to implement and/or work towards if you are NOT elected? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? Do you believe that if either Martin or Gergely are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform? Gergely: I have a tamagotchi too! He's called Foo (I have a limited imagination) Why is your tamagotchi more suited to running the project and being world dictator than mine? How do I get inside the shopkeeper's safe so I can get that credit note? What do we spend the profit on? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? Do you believe that if either Branden or Martin are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform[2]? Martin: Your platform[3] contains a lot of references to your organisational skills and your people skills. I appreciate that last year you attended a lot of conferences too. You *do* mention transparency and accountability as well, but you're not nearly as focused on it as Branden is. Do you see it as less important? You posted several Bits from the DPL over the past year. I found them informative and interesting, however they did at times feel like just an itinerary of the conferences you were visiting, mostly outward looking. Do you plan to continue them? If so would do you plan to change the direction of them to make them more inward looking? One of the dangers of being a successful conciliator is that you can become the first rather than last resort in cases of dispute. Do you think that this has been or will become a problem? It appears to me that the technical committee has fallen into disuse. Do you believe that this is due to there just not being any issues for them to look at, because they have lost the faith and respect of the developer body. because they are an anachronism and no longer useful, or some other reason I've not suggested? QA maintains an almost staggering number of packages. I am on the QA list, and I see almost daily the amount of organisational work you put into our QA effort. Do you think that we need to take a more proactive stance in removing unmaintained packages from the archive? What do you see as the greatest weakness of the project? What new challenges do you plan to present to the project? How many and which of the ideas outlined in your platform do you expect to be able to implement and/or work towards if you are NOT elected? Do you believe that if either Branden or Gergley are elected instead of you that you would be able to work with them to achieve the goals you outline in your platform? [1]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/branden [2]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/algernon [2]http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/platforms/tbm Thank you all for your time and consideration, Stephen -- Stephen Stafford | Development and support consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.clothcat.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Never put off until tomorrow what you can [EMAIL PROTECTED] | con someone into doing for you today This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Proposal: Keep non-free
#include hallo.h * MJ Ray [Sun, Mar 07 2004, 11:44:16PM]: hardware manufacturers (in the last instance) only. Do you think that they produce everything built in their devices? Do you really think that hardware manufacturers don't decide what to build into their devices? Of course they do, but they have different primary goals, eg. produce the hardware product in this century, make it good enough to sell enough of it. Or do you prefer hardware that is 10 times slower or incompatible to what 95% of the market uses, beeing 200% more expensive? Are you really so naive to think that everything in the hardware world can be powered by free software only? Are you so naive to think that all this stuff about 3rd party IP is the end of the line? Huch? I did never say ALL. [...] The vendors of Debian media are free to master them as needed and they often (?always?) integrate non-free. The term official does not mean much then. Your comments seem inconsistent with reality. Check the CD vendors list for many offers of official CDs. Very far from all vendors offer non-free. A-Ha. Looking at the tree most-known CD seller in my country (Lehmanns, LinuxLand, Schlittermann), I guess that 90% of the sold media actually contain non-free software. And moving the non-free tree to another server just to draw a line for no real reasons sounds a bit childish to me. Regards, Eduard. -- Ein Blinder und ein Tauber wollen sich duellieren. Sagt der Blinde: Ist der Taube schon da? Sagt der Taube: Hat der Blinde schon geschossen?
First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Voting starts on Sunday, March 7 23:59:59 UTC 2004. Votes must be received by Sunday, March 21 23:59:59 UTC 2004. The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to decide on future handling of the non-free section. The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated in Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, of the Debian Constitution. The details of the general resolution can also be found at: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_002 HOW TO VOTE Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the choice names. In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1= X = 3). To vote no, no matter what rank Further Discussion as more desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the Further Discussion choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the Further Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further Discussion choice by the voting software). Then mail the ballot to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (replying to this mail may work, but please check the headers). Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters () that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message. - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ] Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1 majority needed] [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free [ ] Choice 3: Further Discussion - - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Details of the choices are as follows. Cease Active support of the non-free section: The text of the GR is: - -- The next release of Debian will not be accompanied by a non-free section; there will be no more stable releases of the non-free section. The Debian project will cease active support of the non-free section. Clause 5 of the social contract is repealed. - -- Re-affirm support for non-free. The text of the GR is: - -- It is proposed that the Debian project resolve that: Acknowledging that some of our users continue to require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our commitment to providing the contrib and non-free areas in our archive for packaged versions of such software, and to providing the use of our infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of non-free software packages. - -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. - -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBEBCJocRBACttrD7MBCuI3HurNs5WZJL/WDjvuVeGZzDLzPzJZsvaReJsc79 vLb4SUjnExtjAUFUHbbwa+9uN/9ko0dOX31a7DbQYUA+4GGGn9ET5ewotjndK6Ag +sFxF0Ew6KLT3ckCEdqix3X/BOvTuuVkpJkr3kQVmJGbaC8AteBnmr1U/wCgl+km 20JlnykcHWNyL85hofuP6xkD/jATylb2OZTRareDhhjx9mTCm3eCK1CRb+JsHRqU YIYphHXD7ko4U/Rn5pzpiqG+hawbqZjzXYAXIYkAP3sY4xofFAXAbDdeNjPJbFKu p0pA2fxooDHt82TWNvY8II1nbsv3Q+1mKACzbQi9xQd8CqHFRl8Icpm3eI3ZSY5x tAtzA/9oWPis7Dg5LD4o3qdVavzT9w4UghaaGm1vD5F1Dh4mlUTIaSwRd1Nv11/4 +O+2RWo/SV5cyJzaCYzuy7/3g8d2bt95phoIs3BHW5DNhTkoIPYdLqdYT7vUQUvF FL5AToHV0vDwVJp0PEcANgDK7WZ4hfIQnKPDo5123TYYYNUc+rYAAABpVGhlIE5v bi1mcmVlIEdSIHZvdGUga2V5IChUaGlzIGlzIGEgdGVtcG9yYXJ5IGtleSBrZXB0 IG9uIGEgcHVibGljIG1hY2hpbmUpIDxncl9ub25fZnJlZUB2b3RlLmRlYmlhbi5v cmc+iGQEExECACQFAkBCJocCGwMFCQA3XwAGCwkIBwMCAxUCAwMWAgECHgECF4AA CgkQACBy5ant7TjPFgCfQaBrdDg+w0aoHgpjIRzfCNQtMT4AnA4YZLgJVbgCknCK 3BCnicCH/wEaiEwEEBECAAwFAkBCThgFgwA3N28ACgkQIbrau78kQkyZ2QCg1OR+ QrytdYGRp9M9cRpgrXmqKiEAoO3YtIhdtULjQkmYc9vEAUJCRMM2uQENBEBCJogQ BAC26p2kIJ6YsmenK6YlexkHCPR3ebmXrQV5Noh3bttplWQ4O86zuR5AtGuXoDll YqqYi7IDUjCSxS/Lecfcjt6VY3T9W0YogFnVVNP/dcG/mjf1MstxUqVADLai6BC7 vNht9qQnLV24V2GYxQnXSDd5VjW+CGm9OArSkJxJuw2k2wADBQP+MLabtXClKNOm eT6l54fVsEhIjUqQ7mx1BJGz1ey+CCgCbRsmKjlmZRDMay6VxhCN1MAY9VaRwrU4 z2efBq4NXBtO+XolbqKc0d3Ml7ruzksM+POhu1sAXeHq4qNhtx3xO4/j+otWuwYJ qYIVGns0GpD4vo965iToq7xCqqyS2M6ITwQYEQIADwUCQEImiAIbDAUJADdfAAAK CRAAIHLlqe3tOINiAJ0WLR1hrgW0OouuzFHersDF1L49RACdG4h4HrEGsw9NueKr P2qUfOV5nfw= =Evd7 -
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 10:38:10AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:48:23PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: Don't trivialise on debian.org to just an /etc/apt/sources.list entry though. The advantage IMHO to having Debian host non-free packages is quality control such as 1. Bug tracking though bugs.debian.org; 2. Developers vetted and a GPG trust path guaranteed through the new maintainer process; 3. Non-free packages must meet same Debian policy as free packages, Actually, I think that only #1 is not trivial, in the case of reassigning bugs between main and non-free. Now personally, I don't believe that there are a lot of examples for this, but I don't have any data to back this up. I asked Colin Watson about this some days ago, and he said it would be rather difficult to get hard data on this. Personally I think split BTSs is reason enough not to split the distribution. [..] Now, ad 2.: That's pretty easy, just use the debian-keyring to authenticate and perhaps (but that's outside the scope of what debian.org can set as policy) also let identified people with a trustpath to a DD contribute, possibly requiring being recommended by an AM in the NM process. That's purely a social problem, the technology is there. ad 3.: You'd have a BTS for this, just as for the real Debian. However there is no reason why a third-party non-free.org would feel compelled to limit themselves to our keyring and our policy. They might well accept help from anyone who volunteers, but would they have an NM process equivalent to ours? No reason why they would have to. They might decide to install all their software in /opt. What about filename clashes between main and non-free.org packages? I think as soon as you get into installing non-debian.org packages on your system you are heading for trouble. So I don't think we should deliberately cause this trouble ourselves by splitting our distribution. Well, *I* will definetely not upload non-free packages to ftp.debian.org, simply to prevent the strenghtening of it. While I'd Fine. I will continue to use the non-free software I require though. Well, dunno. For me, removing non-free from ftp.debian.org is an ethical imperative I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't want to see non-free disappear eventually. The question is whether it's now or later. I think non-free is unfortunately still useful and therefore it's not time yet to remove it. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
