Re: GFDL vote... convince me
[Ivan Kohler] We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. Currently GFDL is a license acknowledged as free by the great mass of the members of the free software community and as a result it is used for the documentation of great part of the currently available free programs. The problem with this is that it assumes developers make informed decisions to use a particular documentation license, and not just take whatever the FSF throws at them. At least once, and I think more than that, someone has said WTF? How can Debian say something from the _FSF_ is non-free? Then I explain a bit about _why_ the GFDL is considered problematic, and I get the reply, Oh. Yeah. So what license should I use, then? At which point I have to explain that the Creative Commons family of licenses are better, but may also have their own little bugs. I end up suggesting GPL or MIT-like things. This illustrates two things. One, people tend to assume, without really checking, that anything issuing forth from the mouth of RMS is a free license - but often they can be convinced otherwise with a bit of explanation. And two, there aren't a lot of high-profile alternative licenses targetted at natural language text (i.e., documentation), so the GFDL gets attention partly because it's in a thin field of options. All of which is to say, the mere fact that lots of people hack on free software and also use the GFDL doesn't necessarily mean a lot. If Debian decided that GFDL is not free, this would mean that Debian attempted to impose on the free software community alternative meaning of free software, effectively violating its Social Contract with the free software community. Social Contract point 4 is repeatedly employed to imply that anything and everything that might possibly inconvenience some users somewhere is wrong. This case is no more valid than others. Serving users and free software does not mean doing everything they think they want, or abiding by everything they think they believe. If indeed the GFDL has some problematic conditions, which is what this vote is about, issuing a statement saying so is a way to raise awareness of a problem many users may not be aware of. That most definitely serves both users and free software. thinking we really need to work this out with the FSF and the community towards a better GFDL v2, not issue divisive proclimations. That has been tried. For over three years. We know invariant sections are here to stay, but some of the other problems with the FDL seem to be entirely unintentional on the part of the FSF - mere bugs in wording, cases they seem not to have considered. If they really were acting in good faith, don't you think those could have been corrected some time in the past three years? Couldn't we have seen at least a _draft_ of a new, better GFDL by now? At some point you have to accept that you're being strung along by endless delays and empty promises. (It should also be noted that the proposed GR is careful to note the version number of the problematic GFDL text (version 1.2), and that later versions may correct some or all of its flaws.) How are you voting? Why? Convince me. :) I'm not a Debian developer, just an interested bystander, possibly a future developer. I'd vote for the original GR, then Dato's amendment, then further discussion. Bonus question: Is GPLv3 draft DFSG-free? If not, why? :) Some other day. (: It has a few problems, but they are very minor and it seems to me they will probably be worked out before the document becomes final. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Ted Walther's unanswered question: who would you kick out?
[Ted Walther] Steve, you've had a day or two to answer this. Ted, you've had days or weeks to answer dozens of questions posed to all the candidates on this very mailing list. Including the one that started this thread. I could be wrong, but I don't believe you've answered _any_ of these in the past couple of weeks, and not many before that. Nor did you answer David Nusinow's set of questions posed specifically to you. The other candidates, while not answering all questions, are at least making an effort to answer some. Could you PLEASE stop demanding answers of your fellow candidates until you've at least _begun_ to make an effort to catch up? Thanks. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: question for all candidates
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: There are a few reasons to dislike the DPL team concept without going it alone; such as the liklihood of formal membership making it difficult for non-members to contribute in the same way members do, or the way that making the team be an issue at election-time tends to politicise it -- if Steve and Andi are working with you, does that mean they're working against me or Joroen? Certainly not. I have accepted to be on Andrea's team because I want to help Debian and had no particular reason to refuse his invitation (even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL). But I will certainly offer my help to another DPL like Steve and you. The technical committee has a policy (written into the constitution, no less!) of doing all its deliberations in the open [0], while the DPL team over the past year seems to have operated quite privately, if not secretively. That's right, and this really needs to change. But this thread explains partly why many things got done privately ... and with another approach I'm convinced that we can do better. Single DPL or DPL team, both have pros and both have cons. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Bill Allombert wrote: On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Now my question: 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more openly? 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how? 3.) Do you think more DSA are needed? I would like to experiment with DSA assistants. The idea is that some Debian machines could not need special priviledge to operate and are not critical to operation, so they could be operated by DSA assistants which would have much less priviledges. This could reduce the work on the DSA and allow Debian to operate more machines, and DSA assistants could eventually became full DSA once they gather the trust of the DSA team. This could also increase transparency as a side effect. You mean, like the site-admin who maintains the host already? (i.e. Matt for paer, merulo, gluck; wiggy for klecker; etc.?) No, this is something different. Alioth is a debian.org machine with a separate set of admin, so there is a precedent. No. Alioth is not DSA maintained, that's totally different setup. Sorry I was very inaccurate. What I wanted to say was that there is a precedent for Debian-official machines to not be administered by the DSA team. Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines. Why? Having two developers-accessible port machines for a platform means more total CPU time (important for the slower ports) and that we still have one usable when the other is down. For which ports? By my reckoning the following port machine are available with chroots: amd64: pergolesi alpha: escher arm: leisner hppa: paer i386: gluck (+pergolesi) ia64: merulo m68k: crest mips: casals mipsel: vaughan powerpc: bruckner voltaire s390: raptor sparc: (db.debian.org do not list gluck as having chroot, and list vore as a sparc port machine. However vore seems to be down currently. pergolesi has both amd64 chroot and i386 chroot.) Only i386 and powerpc have two port machines. Also Joey, this was not intended as a critic of the work of the DSA team. This is a small team and there is some many hour in the day, but you manage to be very responsive to request to install packages, update chroots, etc. I really have a lot of gratitude for all you do. But my reasoning is that we could add more machine without increasing the load on the DSA team. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. pgpHP571cBKOS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly
Bill Allombert wrote: Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and developers accessible port machines with separate accounts. As an aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines. Why? Having two developers-accessible port machines for a platform means more total CPU time (important for the slower ports) and that we still have one usable when the other is down. Why would we need more total CPU time? Not even leisner is overloaded at the moment, and it's probably the slowliest machine. (leisner has a different problem, though). Assuming that the port machines run stable, and if they don't they or the port loses some of their usability, there is no need to maintain more than one development machine for a particular port. Downtimes from 1-3 days are no problem for developers-accessible port machines usually. That's different to buildds, but we're not talking about them at the moment. Hence, please explain why we need more total CPU time and when a downtime from a couple of days maximum is a problem. (db.debian.org do not list gluck as having chroot, and list vore as a sparc port machine. However vore seems to be down currently. pergolesi has both amd64 chroot and i386 chroot.) Hmm, vore should be up. Should be up soon again. Only i386 and powerpc have two port machines. Seeing it this way, it may be worth considering to remove the chroots on gluck as the machine already deals with enough load. Also Joey, this was not intended as a critic of the work of the DSA My questions were also not intended as counter-critic, but only as a request for clarification. But my reasoning is that we could add more machine without increasing the load on the DSA team. My question stays: Why? Of course, we could add all machines that get donated to the Debian project, but why should we? Regards, Joey -- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question to all candidates: What to change?
Hi there, If you were elected tomorrow as DPL, and could only pick one thing about Debian to change, what would it be? Cheers, Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:41:42AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the constitutional issues, it was clear that there was some bit of angst among DD's during last year's campaigning period about that very issue. You wouldn't have been assuming leadership of the project in any formal manner. However, you've made it clear that you think that the DPL team needs leadership - you had the opportunity to provide coordination and make sure that things got done, but chose not to. I tried, by pushing for meetings etc. However, I do not think this is really something a non-DPL can actually enforce in such a team. The concept is new and the team members had varying views and expectations on how exactly the team should and should not work. So, concluding, just because I wasn't DPL. Similarly, if you'd elect me, you'll get me, and not possibly maybe one of the DPL team members whose names I'll announce in a few days. I'll still allow the DPL team members to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without special privileges, as they see fit. But surely the point of a team is for people to be able to pick up the slack if someone can't cope? No, the point is to assist and enable the DPL to be more effective. The team can help in periods of reduced availability, but cannot replace the DPL if he is absent or not leading the team. If you believe that the DPL should still be a single point of failure, what's the point in electing you? The DPL remains a single point of failure. With a team, the DPL will cope at least as good as without, and probably much better. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions for Andreas Schuldei
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team. What you in fact said, amongst other things, was: | stockholm so, in summary, can i conclude that you are not really | willing to become lead ftp-master, with some HR | responsibility and coaching new people? And this happened on the 5th of October, which according to my IRC logs was during the time you were still calling me on a fairly regular basis. You had not talked to me about this at all, in person, on the phone, on IRC or by email. ftp-master in October was certainly not a source of problems in any way that could sanely be used to justify replacing me, as far as I'm aware. So, AFAIC, you were trying to orchestrate an internal coup in ftp-master by backroom deals not because the team was fundamentally broken or a source of serious problems but because you decided that you knew best how that team should be organised. My questions are: (1) Do you count this as part of your considerable experience in how to organise Debian from a leadship (sic) role? (2) Is this modus operandi something you learned from [your] experience in implementing change in volunteer driven scenarios? (3) In your platform you said: As DPL I will lead this work further, which leaves us with more transparent, dynamic and communicative core teams. Do you think that approaching a member of a team in private and trying to convince him to hijack the team is conducive to transparent, dynamic and communicative teams? (4) You also said: Debian needs to care more about its contributors. Is secretly trying to get other members of a team I'm on to hijack it from me how you show you care about me? (5) You also said: as a first step towards a more communicative system, and following, a higher regard and appreciation for those who volunteer and perform these roles. This would also lead to a more friendly, and productive relationship between developers who require help from these teams, and those within it. Likewise, how do you reconcile these fine sounding goals with what you did/tried to do? communicative, higher regard, friendly etc. (6) Finally, is this how other team changes are going to be implemented if you get elected? -- James http://static.flickr.com/26/49423261_a333bc8aa8_o.jpg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions for all candidates: plurality of mandates
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:45:44AM +0100, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: Do you think Debian should *officially* limit the number of delegations for one person? No, there is no useful limit, if anything, it should be case-by-case. Do you consider this multiple hat question a problem? Not on itself. Bottlenecks are the responsability of a whole team. It does make sense to consider current commitments of each candidate for a given job. But this is also the responsability of the candidate to judge. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to candidates Towns and van Wolffelaar: debian-volatile
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:22:54PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: 1.) What is your opinion regarding the current status of debian-volatile? [...] Please see the bottom of [1] for my opinion. --Jeroen [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/03/msg00211.html -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
* Raphael Hertzog [Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:06:01 +0100]: (even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL). Is this a statement, or an hypothesis? If a statement, then I feel compelled to ask: who would? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Andrés Calamaro - Mi Propia Trampa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 08:39:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Last November, [Andreas] and the DPL team wanted to propose a GR that would have forcibly made everyone in a position of authority a formal delegate, and stated that you had replacements ready if they were unwilling to comply. I'd like to emphasise, as you later noted, that this was not something the DPL team wanted. Andreas discussed this within the DPL team, and I told Andreas in November very clearly that I thought it was a very bad idea. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL vote... convince me
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:26:24PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: ... [Few of the people who have applied the GFDL to their work have even done so with a full knowledge of what the licence entails... take for example the surprising number of manuals with every section marked as invariant.] I don't think that's limited to the GFDL. I'm sure that a large amount of code is placed under the GPL/LGPL/Artistic/MPL/etc./ad-nauseum without the author necessarily understanding all the details of the chosen license. My favourite extreme case being: Lol i just chucked that GPL thing on cos it looked neat. -- http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=326491#r12 Which probably serves to highlight that the licence should be not only fool-proof, but idiot-proof. Programmers are not generally lawyers, and want in most cases (if they bother at all) to slap some boiler-plate on the code and get on with the job. Having said that, I can understand the intent of the FSF's inclusion of Invariant Sections and Transparent Copies (although the DRM thing just seems like politics). There have been issues with both the perlfaq and perlreftut licensing in the Perl documentation. In both cases, the copyright holders were kind enough to relax their licenses when asked. Surely the case of inappropriate Invariant Sections can be handled similarly to the way that any problem license issues have been handled by Debian in the past: by politely pointing out to the author the error of their ways... This results either in the license being changed, or the documentation being excluded from the distribution. Think of it as evolution in action. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:05:06AM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: * Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-10 23:23:52]: Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did not ask Joeren for obvious reasons. What were those obvious reasons? You and Branden stood against each other despite agreeing to be on each other's team, so I'm curious as to why the same isn't true this year. It came as a surprise to me to have a contender in my own team when I returned from my skiing vacation last year. I did not want a similar situation this year again. This year, team formation is happening after nominations are already over, so your fear makes no sense. Within the DPL team, I discussed at the beginning of the nomination period who would run this year. I announced that I would most likely nominate myself. Why didn't you inform the rest of the team you were considering to run again until you nominated yourself publicly? That was a surprise for me. The good thing about our voting system is that you cant split votes. By running seperatly (and both being team based) we give people a wider choice of candiates with teams. That is a good thing since everyone who thinks he can do this alone without being just a figure head fools himself and the whole Debian project. Both he and I understood that and can provide a real choice to the voters. I don't understand, identical teams or not, there would've been two candidates with a team? Are the other five candidates all fools, or running to become a figure head? If that's what you wanted to write, I strongly disagree. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Raphael Hertzog [Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:06:01 +0100]: (even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL). Is this a statement, or an hypothesis? If a statement, then I feel compelled to ask: who would? It's a statement that I will not rank stockholm first this year (given everything I've seen and given my own feelings). Of course, not a single candidate is perfect, so it depends on the criterion used to differentiate them. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:26:47PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: At that time I emphazised several times that replacing the teams was only the very last, desperate option, which we were trying to avoid but for completeness sake had considered along with a variety of less drastical ones. No. Making somebody a constitutional delegate does precisely one thing - it gives the DPL the power to fire someone. The great majority of people I talked with considered the core teams delegates already. I would not think that delegates in Debian need to live with the fear of being fired. It never happend before. Leaders are happy if there are people who do the work. The idea of delegating to someone in order to fire him is novel in itself and was certainly not on our mind. I would like to know if anyone else besides you ever got that idea. Er, I raised this exact objection when these clarification delegations were being discussed. It was clear from the context, and from what *roles* people were looking to have delegated, that this was an attempt to exercise control over certain problematic teams: even though the release team occupies the same ambiguous status in Debian of never having been a formal DPL delegation, all of the focus was on delegating teams like the security team because there's a public perception that the release team works well and that the security team doesn't. And since the only real control delegation gives is the power of the DPL to dismiss the delegate, it's not a stretch for someone to think that making someone a delegate in an area they're already responsible for means you *want* to fire them. I cautioned that delegation was only relevant to improving the functioning of these teams if the plan was to replace the current team members. Ultimately, though, it seems we in fact *don't* want to fire these teams, since this GR didn't come to pass. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Questions for Andreas Schuldei
* James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-11 14:02:49]: Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Part of the effords to determine what option there were I asked Anthony Towns if he could take the lead in the ftp-master team. What you in fact said, amongst other things, was: | stockholm so, in summary, can i conclude that you are not really | willing to become lead ftp-master, with some HR | responsibility and coaching new people? You could have given a quote where i also gave a reason: 14:04 stockholm i wanted to know if you could imagine to take bigger responsibility in ftp-masters. 14:04 stockholm since elmo is really busy And this happened on the 5th of October, which according to my IRC logs was during the time you were still calling me on a fairly regular basis. About once a month. You had not talked to me about this at all, in person, on the phone, on IRC or by email. We talked about tons of stuff. Anthony unloading you was certainly not my mail thrust. It was just an idea that popped up and I wanted to follow up on it for completeness. ftp-master in October was certainly not a source of problems in any way that could sanely be used to justify replacing me, as far as I'm aware. You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with him on e.g. his stable point releases. It would have been an easy and smooth way to avoid conflicts between you and Joey in that respect in the future. Unfortunatly I learned that could not work for personal reasons, either. I think I did not ask Ryan to help you and Joey out since I knew already from Joey that the two did not get along so well. I am not sure, though. Have you asked Ryan? Why did you not mention this context here? It was in the same log, and it would have given a more ballanced picture of the situation. It shows (once again) that I in fact tried to scout out options for conflict resolution and avoidance. So, AFAIC, you were trying to orchestrate an internal coup in ftp-master by backroom deals not because the team was fundamentally broken or a source of serious problems but because you decided that you knew best how that team should be organised. I knew you and Anthony were buddies. I never expected, let alone asked Anthony (or Ryan?) to keep this idea a secret from anyone. If I ever had plotted anything against you, Anthony or Ryan would certainly have been the worst choice to ask this. This should give you a hint: I tried to help you (as I said in the chat), not undermine your position. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL vote... convince me
Brendan O'Dea wrote: I don't think that's limited to the GFDL. I'm sure that a large amount of code is placed under the GPL/LGPL/Artistic/MPL/etc./ad-nauseum without the author necessarily understanding all the details of the chosen license. My favorite is the amap author, who created additional restrictions on top of the GPL and really didn't take any attempt to educate him seriously. hmmm so basically I need to edit the LICENSE.GNU file to remove the license name as well as to remove the no further restrictions paragraph from it? ok, I will do that then for the next release ... I never read the GPL I must say :-) thanks! I don't know what that had to do with -vote. But changing existing licensed works is hard. I'd informed the GIMP Help authors that GFDL docs won't be included in Debian main, but the license still hasn't been changed, presumably because not all of the authors fully understand why the GFDL isn't acceptable in the first place. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To all candidates: delegation process
As you might have noted, the Constitution does not spell out the process how a new delegation is made. Would you please summarize the process you intend to follow if you are elected? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QFAC - SPI
I admit I haven't read the platforms as thoroughly as I should've, so forgive if it was covered... IIRC nobody talked about SPI in their platform. Is SPI important for Debian? What is Debian's current relationship with SPI, and should it be different? thanks -- vbi -- featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/subkeys pgp3vljCi7UVm.pgp Description: PGP signature
QFAC - interest conflicts
Again: sorry if I didn't see it on your platforms Are there possible conflicts of interests between Debian and your real life ($WORKPLACE, whatever)? I would be happy if the candidates would state possibly 'dangerous' allegiance[1] now, upfront, and not only if they come up because some actual problem comes up. thanks -- vbi [1] Being on the board of the cat breeder's club in Little Behind-The-Hillington (What's the official english name for Hinterpfupfingen?) obviously isn't a problem. Other cases may not be so clear... -- Today is Setting Orange, the 70th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3172 pgpUko5Dxqw3W.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Questions for Andreas Schuldei
Andreas Schuldei wrote: You were very busy and I knew you and joey had issues and a hard time working together. In the same IRC conversation I first asked Anthony about his working relationship with Joey. He would have been an excellent contact point inside FTP-master to work with him on e.g. his stable point releases. It would have been an easy and smooth way to avoid conflicts between you and Joey in that respect in the future. Unfortunatly I learned that could not work for personal reasons, either. I think I did not ask Ryan to help you and Joey out since I knew already from Joey that the two did not get along so well. I am not sure, though. Have you asked Ryan? For what it's worth, I don't have a personal problem with either James or Ryan. My problems are that James and Ryan as ftpmasters are often quite unresponsive to mail, that both as wanna-build admins have been quite unresponsive via mail and that both as security.debian.org infrastructure admin have been quite unresponsive via mail. As you guessed it, mail is my preferred means of communication. Mail should work since this is a world-wide and international project with different up- and downtimes of their members. Ryan told me that I should send mail and pester him via IRC afterwards for infrastructure/w-b issues. That's giving me a hard time, but I'll try to do so (there was no need for a long time, though). Regards, Joey -- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To all candidates: delegation process
Hi, * Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060311 20:48]: As you might have noted, the Constitution does not spell out the process how a new delegation is made. Would you please summarize the process you intend to follow if you are elected? Thanks. Well, there are two parts of the answer. The formal part, and the social part. First of all, I will delegate only people if they are ready for it. As some example, if e.g. the policy team asks me to extend themself by someone, I will (usually) do as requested. The formal part is: Even if the constitution doesn't specify it, I think delegations for an ongoing area of responsibility should be done public. It is important for the rest of the project to know who got assigned what task and authority. I think the delegations that actually were done publicly during the last term were good examples of the process. A little prompter at times would have been good, though. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: QFAC - interest conflicts
* Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-11 22:06:31]: Again: sorry if I didn't see it on your platforms Are there possible conflicts of interests between Debian and your real life ($WORKPLACE, whatever)? My wife thinks I work too much and my three year old son would like to play with my notebook. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Hi, At the end of voting, with 428 Ballots resulting in 390 votes from 369 developers, GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free has carried the day. Statistics about this vote are at: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_gfdl/ The list of voters is available at: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_gfdl/voters.txt And the tally sheet is available for review at: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_gfdl/tally.txt http://vote.debian.org/2006/vote_001 shall soon be updated with these details (well, as soon as webwml runs) manoj pgpu2UfuH1tvP.pgp Description: PGP signature Starting results calculation at Sun Mar 12 01:29:46 2006 Option 1 GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free Option 3 GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1] Option 4 Further discussion In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that option x received over option y. Option 1 2 3 4 === === === === Option 1 145 226 223 Option 2211 266 272 Option 311776 133 Option 411985 205 Looking at row 2, column 1, GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free received 211 votes over GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases Looking at row 1, column 2, GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases received 145 votes over GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free. Option 1 Reached quorum: 223 46.7653718043597 Option 2 Reached quorum: 272 46.7653718043597 Option 3 Reached quorum: 133 46.7653718043597 Option 1 passes Majority. 1.874 (223/119) 1 Option 2 passes Majority. 3.200 (272/85) 1 Dropping Option 3 because of Majority. 0.649 (133/205) 3 Option 2 defeats Option 1 by ( 211 - 145) = 66 votes. Option 1 defeats Option 4 by ( 223 - 119) = 104 votes. Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 272 - 85) = 187 votes. The Schwartz Set contains: Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The winners are: Option 2 GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= pgplmLgyPpNyC.pgp Description: PGP signature -- I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to. Elvis Presley Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: To all candidates: delegation process
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: As you might have noted, the Constitution does not spell out the process how a new delegation is made. Would you please summarize the process you intend to follow if you are elected? Thanks. See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00686.html Find a need and volunteers; see if that can be handled without a delegation; if a delegation is necessary, make it, by posting the details to -project, or if necessary, -private. Generally, I think that delegations should be fairly limited in scope, and the actions undertaken with the special delegated powers should be easily followed by others subscribing to some list; either -project, -private, or one specific to the area being delegated, eg -release or -legal. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: To all candidates: delegation process
Andreas Schuldei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, I will delegate only people if they are ready for it. As some example, if e.g. the policy team asks me to extend themself by someone, I will (usually) do as requested. If this is the case, why were you supporting a motion to forcibly delegate various people within the project? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process
Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Say (said, saying, says): 2. To express in words: Say what's on your mind. 3. a. To state as one's opinion or judgment; declare: I say let's eat out. b. To state as a determination of fact: It's hard to say who is right in this matter.. Since you expressed your opinion in words, I think the use of the word \said\ is quite proper I disagree. Also, I think it would be better to use a dictionary that shows whether the verb is transitive or intransitive for each meaning, and state to which dictionary you are referring. Any voices you heard reading debian-vote to you today were not mine. If you can't distinguish between me and the voices you hear reading debian-vote to you, please ask your doctor. As a neutral party to this debate, I nonetheless think that such a insult, even if said jokingly and meant to be funny detracts from the value of open and productive discourse. Let us debate grand and noble ideas, not get bogged down in petty details. In case you hadn't noticed, Matthew Garrett insults me in almost every reply for months now. Why don't you ever complain about it? If you wanted to debate grand and noble ideas, why not complain about introduction of the off-topic wife-beating old chestnut? I feel both of those detract from productive discourse more than riffing on the low linguistic register of a message. If you want to debate grand ideas: What role should socio-religious views play in the Debian project? Would using differences in beliefs about death as a motive to call for expulsion (as threatened in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00929.html and explained in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html ) be good for Debian if it happens? If it's OK to expel some DDs for holding minority beliefs and therefore improve the cultural homogeneity of the project, what beliefs should it be done for? On Deaths? Births? Sexuality? Churches? Prayer? Business ethics? Replies to final paragraph to -project, please, else direct. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process
Murdock Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to debate grand ideas: What role should socio-religious views play in the Debian project? Would using differences in beliefs about death as a motive to call for expulsion (as threatened in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00929.html and explained in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html ) be good for Debian if it happens? If it's OK to expel some DDs for holding minority beliefs and therefore improve the cultural homogeneity of the project, what beliefs should it be done for? On Deaths? Births? Sexuality? Churches? Prayer? Business ethics? For those who can't read -private, Andrew's claims are untrue - objections are voiced due to the manner in which Andrew voiced his beliefs, not the beliefs in and of themselves. Nobody believes that Andrew should be expelled from the project because he believes that death should be a celebration of the fact that somebody is no longer constrainted by their mortality. People believe that Andrew should be expelled because he managed to turn a simple notice of the death of a Debian contributor into a several hundred message flamewar. Replies to final paragraph to -project, please, else direct. Clearing up misleading claims should be done in the same forum as the misleading claims. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] My preferred name is you -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who would you expel from Debian? (Was: Re: Candidate questions: expulsions process)
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:44:28AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Murdock Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to debate grand ideas: What role should socio-religious views play in the Debian project? Would using differences in beliefs about death as a motive to call for expulsion (as threatened in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00929.html and explained in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00968.html ) be good for Debian if it happens? If it's OK to expel some DDs for holding minority beliefs and therefore improve the cultural homogeneity of the project, what beliefs should it be done for? On Deaths? Births? Sexuality? Churches? Prayer? Business ethics? For those who can't read -private, Andrew's claims are untrue - objections are voiced due to the manner in which Andrew voiced his beliefs, not the beliefs in and of themselves. Nobody believes that Andrew should be expelled from the project because he believes that death should be a celebration of the fact that somebody is no longer constrainted by their mortality. People believe that Andrew should be expelled because he managed to turn a simple notice of the death of a Debian contributor into a several hundred message flamewar. Good heavens. You think a several hundred message flamewar is just cause for ejecting a developer from the project? What about a thousand message flame war? A flame-war takes two or more to keep going; how would you decide who was the guilty party? The one who you liked the least? Speaking as a DPL candidate, I do not view flame-wars as any sort of cause for expulsion of a developer. Everyone has their disagreements from time to time, and in a diverse project like Debian, deep-seated notions from opposite sides of the continuum are guaranteed to pop up and conflict from time to time. I think the other DPL candidates, especially Steve McIntyre who has been pussy-footing around this issue, should stand forward and say clearly where they stand on the issue of expelling developers; what is a just case for expulsion? Be really clear and specific. Give concrete examples. Have all the other DPL candidates been vague on this topic because they have specific Debian members in mind that they would like to expel as soon as they are voted in to power? I only know of two expulsions in Debians history. Both happened many years ago, and I supported both of them. One was of a developer who started erasing the Debian archives to erase some embarassing remarks he made on the mailing lists. The other was a developer who attempted to use our servers to launch DDoS attacks. Physically compromising the security and dependability of our servers and archives is cause for removal. So is using our servers to compromise the security and reliability of anyone elses machinery. I see no other cause for removal. Ted -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Ted Walther Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC V5H2X6 (Canada) Contact: 604-430-4973 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question to Candidates
James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I never personally replied to Joey's mail about the next point release explicitly saying that fixing sudo was a pre-depends, and I apologise for that. You're not a DPL candidate, and if this question is relevant at all, it's relevant to DPL candidates. So don't think it's a personal question, though I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter also. Especially however, I want to hear what the candidates think. I would appreciate the work done by others in Debian more if there were some kind of rule, principle, or guideline that if a question is not given a serious and thoughtful response, allowing for delays and vacations and whatnot, that any debian developer has the right to go ahead and do something themselves. We already have this rule in the case of NMUs to fix release critical bugs. We also have a procedure for replacing developers who go totally MIA, and an informal procedure for hijacking packages from vaguely-MIA maintainers. But I feel frustrated when I ask a developer a question, and hear nothing back for ages and ages. (And I admit that there have been times when I have myself been guilty of this same problem.) However, if there is an RC bug in a package, and the maintainer has not responded, eventually it's allowed for me to just NMU the package myself. How about extending this to other areas of the project? One difficulty, of course, is that NMUs are massively documented, and fairly easily reversed. Other changes are not so, which may make this too hard, in practice, to accomplish. What about a related idea, in which everyone has some sort of obligation to respond to emails? I appreciate James' apology above for not responding to a message from Joey (or whatever the details are; it's not something that particularly concerns *me* in this case). I have experienced that an email to debian-release nearly always gets a response. I appreciate this, and it means that I can make progress, or at least feel like I can. When I have a release-relevant question, I get an answer, even if I write an over-hasty question, or whatnot. Moreover, since it's a public mailing list, it doesn't matter if the official release managers are overloaded: generally there is someone else who can answer if they don't. And if a question is missed or overlooked, it's fine to repeat it and ask again. What about some sort of general expectation that other developers do the same thing? I would find interactions with ftpmaster more, hrm, comfortable? pleasant? if I could rely on getting some kind of response back. However, when I mail ftpmaster, my recollection is that most of the time the work implied by my question happens, or there is a good reason for it not to, but I almost never have any interaction with the person who did it (except in the case of NEW queue processing, where I do hear back). That's only one example, but perhaps there are others. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who would you expel from Debian?
Ted Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think the other DPL candidates, especially Steve McIntyre who has been pussy-footing around this issue, should stand forward and say clearly where they stand on the issue of expelling developers; what is a just case for expulsion? Be really clear and specific. Give concrete examples. I think you get to demand answers from other DPL candidates only when you have been forthcoming with the questions asked of you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question to all candidates: What to change?
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:20:19PM +, Neil McGovern wrote: If you were elected tomorrow as DPL, and could only pick one thing about Debian to change, what would it be? If I could pick /anything/, it'd be to make Debian suddenly 100% fun for everyone involved. If I can only pick the things that're directly achievable, I'll just go with getting the momentum back -- ie, doing cool things quickly and regularly, no matter what they are. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question to all candidates: What to change?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If I could pick /anything/, it'd be to make Debian suddenly 100% fun for everyone involved. Yeah, I'm with you! Can you outline perhaps some of the things you think that keep it from being 100% fun, and what the DPL can do to help them? I'm interested here both in answers of the form when people do X that's not fun for others which show perceptiveness of reality, and also some which show perceptiveness of the unfunness complaints that we hear, whether you think they're well-founded or not. Oh, and all candidates should feel free to reply. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question to all candidates: What to change?
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: If I can only pick the things that're directly achievable, I'll just go with getting the momentum back -- ie, doing cool things quickly and regularly, no matter what they are. What are some of the organizational or institutional factors which you think keep us from doing these? How can the DPL help them? And other candidates should feel free to reply. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To all candidates: delegation process
su, 2006-03-12 kello 11:21 +1000, Anthony Towns kirjoitti: if a delegation is necessary, make it, by posting the details to -project, or if necessary, -private. Why -project and not -devel-announce? -- Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy. Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
