Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it, your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this? Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind? How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the last? Please hurt another project, not Debian, we had enough of this already. -- bye, Joerg snooze02 sind jabber und icq 2 unterschiedliche netzwerke ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it, your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this? Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind? How about accepting that the project wants to release, and not want to have yet another vote by someone who just doesnt like the outcome of the last? Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote. I don't like that we made an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no point in arguing about it. On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) -- bye, Joerg Some NM: graphviz: ouch, that license is hard to read, damn lawyer gibberish. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote: On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list. I will note there was a simple majority in favour of releasing Lenny with DFSG violations (take that as you will). Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote: On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list. I will note there was a simple majority in favour of releasing Lenny with DFSG violations (take that as you will). Relative to... ? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. I keep hearing this SC is not binding story, as if repeating it lots of times made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is the one that represents this line of reasoning. If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate vote. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Do you have any other idea in mind? Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say, this would be a good time. How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then? (Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.) We can talk about that, yes. I don't think right before a release is the best time to go through all this mess, but alas we already started, and believe it or not, it wasn't my choice. Please let me ellaborate. I think the reason this happened is that although most of these bugs were filed ages ago, nothing was done about them untill it became clear that the Release Team planned to include them in Lenny without asking for an exception (like happened for Sarge Etch). All this could have been avoided if we started talking about the bugs earlier (from a constructive POV rather than just flaming), so let's talk about the bugs shall we? The way I see it, there are 5 cathegories: 1- Firmware in Linux. We already made an exception for these. But it's not clear what the maintainers plan to do after Lenny is released, and it's not clear what the FTP team will do about it either. 2- Long-standing bugs in critical components for which a fix is expected to arrive soon. This includes things like SunRPC, GLX, and even Nvidia obfuscation (#383465). It's not unreasonable to expect the developers would support an exception. Heck, maybe even I would. But none of this _has happened yet_. 3- Non-bugs (IMHO), that'd be the trademark issue in #391935. 4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text file), #483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed according to the maintainer) or #509287 (just move afio to non-free). Why isn't the FTP team enforcing these? 5- Bugs which aren't easy to fix. AFAICS this includes ONLY TWO of them: #477060 and #498475 (aka #498476). Maybe it's worth making an exception for them, but again this is something that should be judged by the project as a whole. This needs proper discussion IMHO. Maybe even a vote. So, if you could tell me that there's going to be a proper solution for #1 and #4, all that's left to do is have a vote to device what we do about #2 (which almost certainly will be exempted) and #5 (which is likely to be exempted too). OTOH, if you just tell me to go elsewhere, I'm sorry but I don't want to look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:14:08PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote: On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote: On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I will assume you're also in that list. I will note there was a simple majority in favour of releasing Lenny with DFSG violations (take that as you will). Relative to... ? I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over the ambiguity of not making any explicit decision. This is hardly the same as simple majority in favour. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org — Oh, George, you didn't jump into the river. How sensible of you! -- Mrs Banks in “Mary Poppins” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said: * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Those questions don't just get resolved by ignoring them. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. -- \“Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. | `\ Dijkstra | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes: I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over the ambiguity of not making any explicit decision. If one doesn't like an option, one ranks FD above it. Matthew -- At least you know where you are with Microsoft. True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle. http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just after a release, rather than just before. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. If you can't understand the Please postpone the bikeshedding after the lenny release so that you'll have proper answers-bit then I can nothing for you. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpmGzQ9lDUMd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. Seconded. +1, seconded too. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: mes...@jabber.org Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
- Robert Millan wrote: The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this. Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear about GR 2008/003 because there is simply nothing crystal clear about it. Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Amusingly, those who called for Manoj's head have now fallen quite silent. There are some things that are clear to me: * I have a very high level of trust in Bdale, even when he starts doing peculiar things. * We should not delay Lenny for further political discussion because people's operations depend on our release. * Discussion of these issues in the shadow of Lenny warps people's minds and makes sane discourse impossible. * We have already made several such releases in the past and do not have a soberly constructed framework for solving the problem permanently. With that in mind, I am inclined to go along with Bdale's release Lenny by all means possible reading of 2008/003. However, if anyone views this as a victory then they are smoking extremely powerful crack. I would rosily call this a convenient failure of democratic discipline on Debian's part. It would be VERY, VERY UNFORTUNATE if it continutes to be a permanent pattern. I think the very survival of our organization depends on us coming to a well defined solution by the next release. So I'm sorry Robert, your heart is absolutely in the right place but I agree that we should release Lenny. I encourage you to go with flow and think about structuring the solution down the road. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team, with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Number of people would like him to reconsider asking the questions just after a release, rather than just before. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. If you can't understand the Please postpone the bikeshedding after the lenny release so that you'll have proper answers-bit then I can nothing for you. Absolutely. If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help you or anybody. It *is* clear that a substantial majority of DDs want us to release Lenny soon rather than attempt to fix every last issue. Please drop it for now. -- Steve McIntyre, Debian Project Leader lea...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
- Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution). The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team, with the DPL being the potential sanity checker. It is clear enough that, recently, Manoj was the roadblock to release because he was the primary consitutionally empowered person that was pushing us to honor the Social Contract, honor the consitution and its majority requirements and generally follow procedure. Now that Bdale is the acting Secretary there should be no further resistance to releasing Lenny. I think you will find that Bdale's intrepretation is going to stick. Just a hunch on my part but I'm a gambling man. Do not take this as an expression of distaste on my part. There are no enemies here, just people disagreeing passionately. Passion is good, we just need to channel it properly. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just didn't like it. I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That decision was not overridden. Hence, the release continues. All else is irrelevant. If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. ACK, I wasn't formally proposing a vote. I could've been more clear about that, but I tend to forget things may not always be as obvious on the other side of the screen. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: David Bowie - John, I'm only dancing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote: Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to imposing his desires or thoughts on the construction or result of a vote. Sadly, embarrassingly, nobody else has yet matched Manoj's level of careful analysis. Robert Milan has at times come close but the non-existent cabal apparently hates him as much as they hated Manoj because the responses to his questions are mostly insults and personal attacks which would cause anyone but a member of the non-existent cabal to be banned. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
- Russ Allbery wrote: If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for another GR unless you want one. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com e...@brainfood.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 08:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them? I'm not sure I agree with your sense of distinction here. I think what I'm saying is a fair rationalization of picking any of 2-5 over 1. How is option 1 related to this? Oh, sorry, perhaps I could have stated that part of my reasoning more explicitly. To my reading, option 1 was the only option that explicitly would have delayed Lenny release. All of options 2-6 favored release of Lenny, varying in how broad an exception should be granted and how that choice might be rationalized. Option 1 was the only choice voted below FD. All other options were considered acceptable outcomes by the voters. That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of desire by the voters that we release Lenny. Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes: - Russ Allbery wrote: If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise. Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask for another GR unless you want one. I'm not entirely sure how to take this response. If you're trying to say that I shouldn't have written the above paragraph, I beg to differ. One of the problems with this whole mess from the start, as far as I'm concerned, has been a lack of clarity around what the outcomes are, what actions accomplish something, and what actions don't. My participation in these threads, such as it is, has mostly been aiming for additional clarity on exactly what actions are possible and what they mean so that people can understand the outcome and make informed decisions about what they want to do. I'm not going to refrain from mentioning the word GR out of a fear that to mention it will be to invoke it. We're all adults. We all know the situation, we all know that another GR at this point on this topic may cause harm to the project, and we all know that people are feeling fatigue. I think it's worthwhile to be very clear about what's happening and what actions would be required if one wanted to stop it precisely *because* of that. Otherwise we risk drifting sideways into a situation that would have been avoidable if we'd known the consequences going in. If Robert feels this point is so important that he's willing to propose another GR to stop the release, my refusal to mention the term GR isn't going to stop him. Whether he does or not is a decision that only he can make. I think it's worthwhile being extremely blunt about this at this point. Robert isn't happy with how the outcome is being interpreted. I understand and respect his disagreement with me over my contitutional interpretation. However, just as that disagreement didn't cause him to change his mind, neither has it caused me to change my mind. I think that it's clear from subsequent discussion that there's enough agreement with either my interpretation, with Bdale's alternate way of arriving at a similar conclusion, or with a feeling that we should postpone this issue for now regardless, that Robert's constitutional interpretation is not going to be adopted at present. I think that was clear even before the outcome of the vote. In the realm of debian-vote, he therefore has a choice (as do those who agree with his interpretation). He can either propose another GR to have the project adopt his interpretation via a delegate override, he can let it go for the time being and bring it up again later, or he can let it go entirely. (Obviously he has other possible actions outside of debian-vote, such as fixing or helping to fix the bugs with which he's concerned, but that's outside the scope of the point I'm making.) We do ourselves no favors by not being forthright about the possibilities. It's clear that we don't have consensus, so having another extended discussion about how we don't have consensus just creates more hurt feelings and animosities. If I were absolutely convinced that the project was going off in a very bad direction on this topic, the strongest argument that I'd see against proposing another GR right now is that it's a *tactically* horrible idea. Another GR right now is likely to be soundly defeated *regardless* of the project's opinion as a whole on the constitutional question. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Purpose of the Constitution and the Foundation Documents
i...@davenant.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) writes: In fact I'm strongly opposed to all of these binary firmware blobs and like nonsense. It's just that I recognise that the way I would have to fight that battle is by helping to do the work to get them out of Linux rather than postponing Debian indefinitely, which doesn't help anyone. +1 Bdale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact you named your proposal Reaffirm the Social Contract, i.e. SC-trolling the rest of the project not in line with your opinion. I keep hearing this SC is not binding story, as if repeating it lots of times made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is the one that represents this line of reasoning. If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate vote. I challenge you to do something useful for the project instead of dragging us down with voting nonsense. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote: 4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text file), #483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed according to the maintainer) Of course it could be removed, and it's technically trivial. The question is whether it is worth the disadvantages to our users, when we still expect (or hope or something in between) that the files will be released under a DFSG-free license once we manage to attract enough attention from Donald. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. Bdale, After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and at the same time I failed to explain accurately what I meant here. So please bear with me, and let me rephrase it in a way that doesn't make it a less serious problem, but at least more sympathethic. I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time, so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily. When you accepted your position as Secretary, you knew this implied making tough decisions, and being responsible for them. You decided that the ballot was good enough to be voted on; you could have cancelled the vote, or you could have announced the results saying they're basically useless, but you didn't. Fair enough, it's your decision. And I don't see a problem with the ballot myself. However, when you were asked about the way you're interpreting the results, what you're essentially telling us is that the ballot was ambigous, and badly worded. You probably think this is my fault because I wrote a significant part of it, but that doesn't matter: you already decided the ballot is good enough, and (unless you want to retract that) you're bound to your own decision. So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot was flawed, or change your interpretation to make it consistent with the ballot. I assume you won't be doing the latter, but if you choose the former instead of not doing anything, you have my support on that. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
