Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2020: Candidates
Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary wrote: > We're now into the campaigning period. We have 5 candidates this > year: > - Jonathan Carter > - Sruthi Chandran > - Brian Gupta Dear Debian Project Secretary I seem to be having difficulty counting to 5. I only get as far as 3 when counting the above list of candidates. Help! ;-) -- MJR
Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR
2019-12-05 1:09:00 PM Sam Hartman : > And as I discussed in the CFV, each successive round of people who > wonder along and joins the discussion makes the cost higher in real > ways. This reads a bit like CFVing early to exclude people which I oppose. I support Ian. I do not second yet because I think the secretary has ruled it out of order. I am concerned that no allowance seems to be made for secretary overlooking an email from Ian. > This sort of thing is expensive no matter how you handle it. [...] Yes and I agree with the earlier comment that a repeat soon will be very expensive and would prioritise avoiding that. > I will be shocked if I find that a significant number of people > rank another option between G+D and D. If DPLs knew all opinions, we would not need GRs. -- MJR - please excuse brevity because this was sent while mobile
Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge that the debian-private list will remain private
On 07/07/16 16:37, Don Armstrong wrote: > I have no problem acknowledging that we haven't been able to implement > the existing GR, but I don't see the utility of voting to remove the > possibility of ever implementing it. I agree 100%. > I don't see how we could ever declassify -private without this amendment > as the previous vote had an alternative to declassify mails before 2005 > which failed, [I should note too, that I've attempted on one or two > occasions to go through and declassify -private, but the process > required was far too clunky.] I've only looked at this once but "too clunky" is being far too nice about the process set out in https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002 - it requires a team to be delegated that then writes a sophisticated automated system which does a load of indexing, natural language parsing, dereferencing, email interfacing, semi-private publication and more email interfacing! I don't think it's implementable in any sensible manner. At the very least, the requirement for the declassification to be automatic needs to be removed because no automatic system is going to adhere to those constraints perfectly. It also couldn't be implemented before December 2008 because there was nothing to implement it on until then, thanks to the amendment. So the new proposed GR is wrong in its preamble to suggest it could have been implemented ten years ago. I feel an attempt should be made to reform that process to something we might stand a chance of implementing, rather than abolish it entirely, but I'm currently unable to second Don's excellent amendments. I beg other DDs to consider them favourably. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Re: [all candidates] vote time?
Rhonda And personally, I consider that is a false direction in the campaigning period. Addressing big issues isn't something the DPL has more power for than any other DD-- [...] Sure they do - we've seen DPLs call things consensus when that's very unclear to me and invoke their power to Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility. They also have power to streamline the General Resolution process and hold the casting vote. I agree that DPL candidates often plan to do stuff that doesn't need the DPL powers, but there are a few powers which help tackle big issues, even if they can be tackled without them. Hope that makes sense - I'm in a rush. -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ui3lu-0001u1...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Moray Allan mo...@sermisy.org On 2013-03-18 12:45, Charles Plessy wrote: Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been raised last year http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html I didn't see this subthread at the time. From reading it, I can't understand why no one who took the time to read it and reply took the time to fix the wiki. Well, most email clients are pretty user-friendly but the wiki is not very user-friendly. It claims every page is an Immutable Page and I though you can find me forgetting more than once that it changes if one logs in - which isn't mentioned on http://wiki.debian.org/HelpContents And I've not fixed that second page because apparently the login details I have stored locally were not correct because apparently all user passwords were reset and when I just tried to recover it, I got told Your token is invalid! in nice friendly(!) red text with a big red X. I'm now asking debian-www and will keep moving it up, but surely most people just go and do something more fun instead when they get given a big red X? So, I feel if someone doesn't understand why people point out the wiki's bloopers without fixing them, they're not empathising with users. Even for stale old webwarts like me, the debian wiki feels pretty strange and a bit hostile. I wish I had the spare time to improve it, but there's so much else to do first (after all, why run for DPL rather than improve the wiki more? ;-) ) Hope that informs, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1uhfcf-00021s...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: [all candidates] vote time?
Lucas asked Dear questioners, How much time do you think DPL candidates should spend answering those questions? :) Probably about half of the time it currently takes ;-) More seriously, [...] Maybe we should try to have some of those discussions on a more regular basis, outside DPL elections? I think that would be healthy and probably make the DPL elections easier for people. Personally, I posted http://www.news.software.coop/in-praise-of-consensus/1445/ where (among other points) I suggest that the debian project misses a good test for consensus (GRs seem an expensive and heavy one and there's significant pressure against using them) or a common understanding of how strong a consensus we want (like: is it more or less than the established majority sizes?). That makes many discussions a lot longer than they really need to be, where it seems either there are a few people basically in agreement bikeshedding, or there's an irreconcilable minority who ought to stand aside and let the remainder develop a compromise. So as the discussions are long, there's a reluctance to start them, which has a number of side-effects, including these Big Questions to DPL Candidates which maybe aren't really much about the DPL vote. I'd welcome a DPL who led work on this aspect of the project management. I suspect that until there are a couple of minor tweaks to the project, it's difficult to reach sufficient consensus if the DPL's against it. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ugroj-000158...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: [all candidates] Debian as an FSF Free Software Distribution
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org On 14/03/13 at 12:21 -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: What work will you be doing to continue Zach's efforts to negotiate with the FSF over Debian's status as a Free Software Distribution? Actually, the FSF refers to Free System Distributions not Free Software Distributions. I think we'd say they contain non-free software, whereas FSF say they contain non-software because it regards only programs as software, so it's OK to forbid users editing the multiple included copies of the GNU Manifesto. [...] A great achievement would already be to agree with the FSF on a detailed list of disagreements. Some easy bugs are likely to be fixed in the process, but I'm not convinced that we should go much further, and negociate/compromise /make concessions with the FSF. That would be useful. I've been trying to clarify about debian in some discussions with a FSF-supporting group near some of our businesses: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsuk-manchester/2013-02/msg00027.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsuk-manchester/2013-03/msg2.html and maybe some other threads in that time - and you may like to skip the subthread where I get cross about trisquel's discrimination and restart at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsuk-manchester/2013-02/msg00058.html But it still feels like trying to fit a carpet in a room where people are moving the walls: as soon as you push down one edge, a wall is moved, another edge pops up and is called unacceptably ugly! Meanwhile, if you point out that some other carpet doesn't fit either, that wall is moved back to accommodate it or the other carpet gets trimmed. If the walls were clearly fixed, we could decide whether or not we want to fit within them. Until we've got some measurements, which we can't take ourselves because we don't see the walls in the same places as the FSF, we can't and it's rather frustrating to try. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ugsii-0001dj...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
[all candidates] vote time?
Dear candidates, How much time do you think voters should spend reading these discussions? With the benefit of some hindsight, do you feel that you are being concise enough to achieve that time? Would you change anything about the DPL or GR processes to help achieve that time? Thank you for your attention and I await your reply with interest. Best wishes, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1ug8ru-00029z...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org So you are already free to do it by delegating. A GR would be used to overrule your decision, but, as you already noted, there is already a general consensus on the issue. Equally, the DPL is empowered to start a GR to do this. I'm very happy to see a DPL checking that there really is consensus. We don't have a great history of GRs overruling decisions, do we? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100914102601.39a98f7...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2010: Call for nominations
Colin Tuckley co...@tuckley.org Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: PS leather, rinse, repeat, I guess ... I think you mean lather (it means to wash with soap). Yeah, but leathering (hitting hard with a belt as a punishment) may also be an appropriate action for someone considering standing for DPL! ;-) Sorry, I'll get me goat... -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100308120340.6af40f7...@nail.towers.org.uk
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org [...] my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. As will become clear, I disagree with at least one significant point of the premise, but I'm also not clear that this is merely a GR to show consensus. The copyright documentation practices are mostly the decision of the ftpmasters (although advised by various people), so this GR is actually overriding their decision. What is their view of these ideas? My personal conclusion is also that this time could be better spent, but for it to be safe to do that would require changes in copyright law, so you would be best off campaigning for liberalisation of copyright and related rights as a first step. According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can be said that they are not part of the Debian system. [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian system. In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Firmware
Joey Schulze j...@infodrom.org wrote: Luk Claes wrote: It's of course possible to load firmware from extra media during installation or install the right package (from non-free) when booting back to an older kernel (to have network again) to be able to use the network with the new kernel... What do people think of a new vote regarding the status of firmware? One of the options can probably be Peter Palfrader's proposal [1]. I would rather like to keep binary firmware blobs outside of Debian/main and maintain them in Debian/non-free with improved and easy ways to load them during the installation. I agree with the above. I think a lot of the criticism is more to do with the particular implementation making it unnecessarily difficult to load firmware (it took me three attempts I think - the documents weren't clear but I thought it was just me being dense) rather than the general principle. We might require a new vote in order to release squeeze at some date. Amen. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. Although I understand where this is coming from, I have fairly strong reservations about coding something like this in the constitution. For one thing at some point we'd need yet another GR to revert the text to its old form if the experiment were to fail. I don't understand: the motivation for my amendments is to avoid having yet another GR if the experiment were to fail... because if the experiment fails, that means we don't have a viable GR process, which means we're stuck and are responsible for running the project aground. I've been there, done that and want to avoid it here. If the experiment succeeds (GR-2Q or whatever works fine), then it needs another GR to make the increased seconding more permanent, but that's as trivial as a GR can be. The argument will be over and it'll be a simple evidence-based decision IMO. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or pretty much anything else we've not tried, while linking seconding to population size risks making the developers by way of a GR impotent, so let's keep a safeguard escape route. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if a year has passed, starting from the proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Thanks for reading, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJy0AhmUY5euFC5vQRAkhRAJwMmC+lDbnRIJgQ21c/0gPKzMBiAQCgqSNj UlbqxzbAGBq9Nsl0VbVlXDg= =Tj36 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END Seconded, in principle, but it has some issues: - What if no GRs are proposed in the first year? Then the if general resolutions are proposed condition isn't satisfied and clause c isn't active - in effect, the expiry clock hasn't started. How can it be made clearer? - You should probably make it explicit that DPL elections do not count :-) I thought the constitution was pretty obvious that DPL elections are not general resolutions (for example, 5.2. Appointment says The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution) but to be clear, how about adding under sections 4.1.2 to 4.1.6 (inclusive) of the current constitution after proposed in clause c? Or 4.1.2 to 4.1.7 but I feel appointing a secretary should be excluded if appointing a DPL is, because that's another automatically-triggered GR, although it's rarer. Thanks, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJykXhmUY5euFC5vQRAqofAJ0QP1AlzngRwt/5Rna0yL6J3tsWXgCeOZil YDvHq1Oeq0YzLAsZ3arq+eY= =vTuG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Question for DPL Candidates: Debian $$$
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:43:06PM +, MJ Ray wrote: paying grants to other charities to evaluate debian, What does this mean? Paying someone to evaluate debian? I don't get this ... As I understand it, charities currently pick their operating system by either doing an independent evaluation (an old guide of that sort of style from when I last worked for a non-profit is at http://www.volresource.org.uk/swit/select.htm ) or by buying from an approved list like http://www.ctxchange.org/directory/30 Use of debian seems to be limited because it isn't on any approved lists and charties can't get funding for an independent evaluation at the moment. Would you support using donations to fund one or both of those? to adapt it to meet their needs and deploy it, Who will be payed to do the development and deployment? [...] Whoever the charities would select. I think it's not up to me because I have a conflict of interest. or to hold meetings to do that? That, on the contrary, is perfectly reasonable and I will be all for that. How would you like that to work? I was at a meeting for local voluntary and community infrastructure organisations and the most-mentioned reason for not considering debian seemed to be a lack of resources. Meanwhile, the debian project seems to have surplus resources. This seems a bit of a daft situation. Please expand this argument. Who was looking for resources and which kind of resources where they looking for? Some attendees at the recent NAVCA.org.uk event http://bit.ly/EGL5 seemed to be saying that they didn't consider free and open source software because of a lack of resources to get the decision-makers to meet/work on such things. They weren't looking for resources, but they didn't know that people donated money to organisations for the general promotion of debian. I think that lack of awareness among non-profits is something that debian's money could help to address, if there's enough for the forseeable in-project needs. I'm undecided about the most effective kind of resources, but there only seems point investigating further if a general aim of targetted debian promotion to NPOs would be funded. Does that explain it and do the candidates think surplus donations could be used to help NPOs to consider debian in some way? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr wrote: - - - - - - - General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5: The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline. - - - - - - - I second the above Resolution, although I note it is missing the world General before Public. My personal rationale is three-fold: firstly, the uncertainty about whether we have to ensure availability of the whole software or only our modifications (in other words, whether our app should go offline if savannah, debian or whatever upstream hosting service goes offline to our users) could be a significant cost of use (this is broadly Bill Allombert's point 2.2); secondly, the AGPL contradicts the freedom to distribute when you wish which I always thought was a fundamental part of free software. It has often been mentioned by RMS and others, in speeches such as http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html and some forced-publication licences (such as Reciprocal Public License) have been listed on http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense finally, the AGPL is grounded in the self-contradicting idea of being specifically designed to ensure cooperation as described in its preamble (which also differs from the GNU GPL). I believe cooperation is necessarily voluntary (and I am not alone in that - see http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html#1) and that ensured cooperation is coercion, not freedom. This is broadly in line with debian's constitutional idea that A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view. Regards, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJx3v4mUY5euFC5vQRAq4PAKCAILfH4vqC9mNfZEisA89K1bOtjQCgmKeh Z+cEKLJLzYnqDSMKBXZuXY8= =7dWJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote: While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to increase its value from the current 5 to something higher. [...] Given that I feel the project's way of removing MIA developers is a bit random, a bit opaque and not an explicit part of the NM agreement, I think anything dependent on the actual number of Developers risks paralysing the democratic processes. Debian Membership should probably be addressed before increasing the GR requirements. Various IRC discussions and the discussion on debian-project in December told me that others feel similar. So here is a proposal. Further, the discussion on debian-project in December asked for data http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00197.html and there's little available data to support the options in this GR. I think it's improper that the proposal did not link the discussion. Because there's little available data, I'm open to experimenting with this, but I think we need a safeguard to avoid paralysis. I think a so-called sunset expiry is a good idea. AMENDMENT START Replace too small with thought to be too small, but there is a lack of evidence about the correct level. Replace clause c with c) if general resolutions are proposed but none receives the required number of seconds in a year, this resolution expires and the required number of seconds returns to K. AMENDMENT END This amendment may be combined with any of the proposal in Message-id: 87vdq3gcf6@vorlon.ganneff.de or the amendments in Message-id: 87r60rgcdd@vorlon.ganneff.de Message-id: 20090322131519.gh4...@halon.org.uk and I invite their supporters to accept this amendment. Otherwise, I ask for seconds for all three combinations. I suggest that their ballot lines be the same as for the proposal or amended proposals with with expiry clause appended. Hope that helps, - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJx4JYmUY5euFC5vQRAkCtAJ9NHeYDTo9iK1naFzCWkgzvCHgqowCfc+r2 UL7jAjNUDckNaQhbeXcK19w= =L7mO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop writes: I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view. I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and effects. I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even if you agree with the substance. Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721 merely a summary of current practice? The statement there seemed incomplete in significant ways. Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds. I'm not that great at bureaucracy, so I think it's better that only the secretary decides the rules, rather than having every DD try to use the rule book as a weapon. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009: Final call for nominations.
Carsten Hey c@web.de wrote: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:53:17AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: To be valid, a Debian Developers can send a signed email in which they nominate themselves, to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org lists a Debian Developers? :) How about To be valid, a Debian Developer can send a signed email nominating themselves to the debian-vote@lists.debian.org lists? That treads on the singular they landmine. Also, it sounds like it's the Debian Developer's validity in question. How about Debian Developers may nominate themselves by sending a signed email to debian-vote@lists.debian.org? How about Shepherds Bush (Central line)? (I'm not a native speaker.) Noted. Thanks for playing anyway! -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DPL Debates [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009]
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote: [...] I'd like to raise the question of whether these IRC debates are really something we should have. I know Don and the panelists put a lot of time and effort into making the debates happen, which is part of why I ask the question: is it really worth all this effort? What do we get out of a three-hour real-time IRC debate that we don't already get from the candidates' platforms and three weeks of discussion on debian-vote? I think the main thing I get is to see whether anyone is a hothead like I was or whether their first instincts are to ramble or spout buzzwords, as well as how well some of the candidates respond within fairly tight deadlines. Possibly interesting leadership skills. Even so, I feel we could shorten it quite a bit without significant loss and I think I've written as much before. (Put your own joke about debian being an endurance sport sometimes here.) The more structured (and time-consuming) Q+A part could happen by email beforehand, leaving just the moderated debate (questions from audience) and free-for-all for IRC, maybe as:- Start at 20:30 UTC 1. Introductions 2. Moderated Debate (up to 30 min, questions from audience, candidates answer as soon as ready) -- 5 minute break -- 3. Free For All (30 min of insanity, panel questions from audience) 4. Closing Remarks Stop by 21:55 UTC Would that be better? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DPL Debates [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009]
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: People who'd like to help run the debate and/or collect questions can also volunteer with a message to -vote. I'd like to do either, as previous years. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Possible GR: pre-proposal participation by DDs [strawpoll]
I believe that most debian developers ignore discussions of possible GRs like the current one, until/unless they look like reaching the required number of seconds to trigger a vote. It's hard to prove that a group is ignoring something, but disproof is simple: please could all DDs who watch pre-proposal discussions of possible GRs please email mjr-possiblegr at debian.org. I'll count with from -f possiblegr.mbox | wc -l in a week or so, after filtering out any emails from non-DDs. Following a couple of complaints, I've set Reply-To on this request and posted it as a new thread, to make it easier to spot. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Ron r...@debian.org wrote: [...Wouter Verhelst's counts...] Those results are not surprising, and if anything make it clear we can easily get more seconds for notable issues than is currently required. How many more is debatable, but this isn't very good evidence for your assertion that 30 people is a very high bar. So provide other evidence, or at least point towards it. I'm using what I've got and I can't use what I've not got. [...] The _formal_ discussion period is limited in length, and IMO quite short. Far too short in fact to actually achieve a real, well considered, consensus in that time. OK, so this proposal means people would spend more time on each GR. I feel that's probably a bad consequence. MJ Ray wrote: [...] also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people. I'm not sure what you aim to imply there? Are DDs more like sheep than 'people' are or vice versa? Neither. Just there are vote discussion posters who are not DDs. 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive; The justification (or perhaps 'last straw') is the poor quality of recent vote options, where many people even had quite some difficulty figuring out what the difference between any two options were. [...] I was amongst those having difficulty, as I noted in http://www.news.software.coop/debian-lenny-gr-and-the-secretary/417/ I don't understand how 2Q would necessarily have made it easier, rather than longer and noisier. The exaggeration about how big a change this is seems excessive, but I don't think 30 / 1000 is by most normal scales of excess. What normal scales for seconding? 2. the obvious spoiler effect may exclude consensus options prematurely (interaction of thresholds and Condorcet voting); Sorry, but that sentence is just entirely self-contradictory and unparseable to me ... Whatever effect you speak of is not 'obvious' to me, and if options _had_ consensus clearly there'd be more than 30 people supporting them and they wouldn't be excluded ... Do the different views reduce to: do we believe options should reach consensus before the start of the SRP? [...] Loaded explanations like unjustified and excessive only work if you are preaching to the choir. For the rest of us, that will need to be backed up with some justification of your own if we are to understand what injustice and excess really concerns you here. I've been done! The explanations are loaded because they're not explanations: they're a summary of concerns, as requested previously. My limited justification can be found in messages like http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00197.html but I'd welcome justification of 2Q - instead of simple contradictions like these. I don't think a 600% increase is a conservative step. Fortunately this is just an error in your math :) Let's see: It was, but not in that way. If 5 = 100% then 30 = 600%. [... *larger* warring factions? ...] Well if you really believe that might be a problem, then surely you'd be in favour of my actually radical suggestion to raise this threshold to something like 80% of people in the keyring? Not this threshold, but I think I'd second replacing the SRP with something radical that required a relatively high %age. I would prefer any replacement to be time-limited unless there's good reason to be sure it works better than the current way. Alternatively, would it make the path of least resistance ignore everyone else whenever possible because they'll never get 30 or 60 DDs together? Are you saying that if I ever vote with some faction I will never be able to cross the floor and vote with a different group of people who I agree more with on some totally different topic? No. I'm suggesting that GRs would become too rare to be a concern for almost all activities. [vote options defined by a ballot jury] Wait, I'm confused again ... if you are worried about secret groups of 30 people having too much power to influence the project, where are we going to get this jury from, and who will watch the watchers? I'd use a public group selected at random from the keyring, but I'm not strongly attached to that method. [... what goes on in -vote ... not attractive ...] should you really be surprised that we'll build our own consensus to rise up and stop you from doing that? Stop *me*? In 5+ years, I think I've put one amendment on a ballot. I feel that misdirected personal attacks do more to divide the project than any number of discussions. It's not really rocket science, not once you've seen it once or twice before. So please name the other places you've seen it, to convince everyone. [...] I don't want to join the ranks of people who just repeat themselves over and over and over in the vain hope that this will win people over to their way of thinking. Instead of repeating oneself, one could try posting evidence and explaining reasoning, instead of simply making opposite claims and complaining about other views
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Ron r...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs. Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those popular DDs be able to propose GRs, or can someone suggest acceptable ways of recruiting seconds outside -vote? Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...] No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.) Do you really think it would have been difficult to obtain 2Q seconds for a resolution to recall the previous vote, and postpone it until some of the more obvious glitches had been better ironed out? [...] Yes, based on the summary of other votes by Wouter Verhelst and others. So, are supporters hoping this situation will change, only a few well-connected DDs will be able to propose GRs, or what? We seem to have totally lost the goal of making decisions that affect many or all developers by consensus. The process of building consensus revolves around satisfying the concerns of people who see problems with your planned course of action to arrive at a Better Solution. If you can't get the consensus of around 30 people to begin with, it doesn't take a degree in advanced math or political science or military strategy to arrive at the conclusion that you are a LONG WAY from having the consensus of the whole project. In general, that's correct. In particular, if you need 30 people just to *start* the discussion period, that's going to kill many potential options before they have any chance of building consensus and others will be far too entrenched by the time public discussion starts; also, it's 30 DDs, not 30 people. By way of example, this proposal was not some off-the-hip idea of Joerg's. It has already been discussed to the point of little (or rather no) objection in another forum, and has in-principle support from quite a few people. Could someone link to that discussion, please? It may contain answers to questions being asked now. You'll note it was not proposed as a vote, even though it could easily get the required number of seconds to do so, but rather as a discussion point to further build that consensus among a wider forum, and hone some of the little (but important) details. I applaud that it appeared pre-proposal[!], but I think the emphasis is on building a majority (not consensus). The discussion so far seems to have consisted of Joerg[*] and others defending the proposal as it currently stands, rather than engaging in any consensus-building. There was one question[+] but no follow-up on that in a week, so I've moved from seeking amendments, to emphasising the profound problems in the proposal, in the hope of getting follow-up or at least avoiding that first public draft continuing. * - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00191.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00192.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00193.html + - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00195.html That you seem to now be waging a 'campaign' against it, does seem to indicate that you have quite missed the point. How about we drop this war-word 'campaign', Fine by me: I didn't introduce 'campaign' to this aspect of the discussion. and you instead come up with a concise list of your concerns, so that we make take them to build a better proposal rather than load them into a vote option as ammunition to try and shoot it down. I don't want this to get just enough support to squeak by, I want everyone to agree on the problem and give their best to finding a solution that they like. Here's a summary list of concerns I mentioned in other emails:- 1. 2Q is unjustified and excessive; 2. the obvious spoiler effect may exclude consensus options prematurely (interaction of thresholds and Condorcet voting); 3. it favours organised campaign groups who gather in secret before springing discussion on debian lists; 4. it encourages defending proposals too early, during the discussion period. I think your comparisons to local government councils as 'similar' organisations is a misdirection. You say any constituent may take something to the council which they must then vote on. [...] No, I never said that. Any constituent may ask something of the council which (as I understand it) we must then answer - it rarely results in a vote because most questions are matters of fact. However, DDs have nothing similar in the debian project - to reduce GRs, having another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets answered might help. But if one thinks comparisons to local government councils are a misdirection, what about company boards or the ICANN At Large? Or what about providing some other, better comparisons or analyses from *outside
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Michael Goetze mgoe...@mgoetze.net wrote: MJ Ray wrote: to reduce GRs, having another way for developers to ask a question that nearly always gets answered might help. Such as, say, writing an email to debian-de...@ldo? On inspection, that works more than I thought, but it seems to work better for some tasks (ftpmaster team seem to answer ~70% of questions asked about that work there, for example) than others. IIRC there's no certainty that anyone in particular reads debian-devel, so how often does asking on debian-devel work? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote: In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that you want to see resolved. The statement I second this proposal only means I want to see this voted on, not I support this statement, and I think that's a good thing. I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not help that process. Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the wider DD population, rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame the self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote. Even if the number of seconds for a proposal is raised to something massive like 2Q, would it be worth keeping the number of seconds for a partial amendment at K? If we're going to have the trouble of votes, we might as well vote as comprehensively as possible... (To do this, I'd probably add to the end of A.1.2 A partial amendment is one which changes only one point of the resolution. and add to 4.2.1 after other Developers, the words or if it is a partial amendment sponsored by at least K other Developers, and keep K defined.) I'd also support voting on groups of conflicting proper amendments *before* voting on the full resolution options, as happens in councils, many business boards and so on. The aim is to have the most consensual of each of the necessarily alternative options in the main vote. The cost is a more complicated voting procedure, as far as I can see. (To do this, I'd probably replace single ballot that in A.3.1 with up to two ballots. If there are any partial amendments, a preliminary ballot includes a vote for each point of the original resolution and each non-partial amendment and with each vote having options for the original text and for each partial amendment to that point. The final ballot and replace , each amendment with (as amended by any preliminary ballot), each non-partial amendment (as amended by any preliminary ballot). I'd love a simpler solution if anyone knows one.) Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 02 Jan 2009, MJ Ray wrote: Sorry - I'm with Wouter Verhelst on this. Having options on the ballot that only a small minority of DDs support can help resolve conflicts: it lays them to rest, demonstrating they fail in the wider DD population, If an option can't get seconds enough to pass K (or Q), it doesn't have support in the DD population or the proposers are lazy, and don't want to find enough support. In either case, people's time shouldn't be wasted with the effort required to run a vote and vote in it. In the past, I've seen considerable resistance to vote topics being discussed outside -vote, unless they're by one of a few popular DDs. Do supporters of nQ expect this situation to change, only those popular DDs be able to propose GRs, or can someone suggest acceptable ways of recruiting seconds outside -vote? Secondly, does the above mean that all votes that include options which don't have either an organised campaign group or a clear majority are wasted efforts? Do we have a shortage of available vote-runners and if so, why aren't we recruiting a democratic services team instead of only one new Secretary? rather than the DDs supporting them being able to blame the self-selecting subset who participate on debian-vote. If DDs who support them are unable to gather enough seconds via -vote, nothing stops them from finding other people who support the proposal using other methods. Furthermore, there are at least 103 DDs subscribed to -vote[1], so arguments about some self-selecting subset are a bit misplaced (not that that'll stop them from being made.) There may be 103 DDs *subscribed*, but how many *participate* in any one vote? A few days ago, I showed it was less than 80 people, so it can't be 103 DDs. Also, how is 103 subscribers *not* a self-selecting subset of ~1000? Even if the number of seconds for a proposal is raised to something massive like 2Q, would it be worth keeping the number of seconds for a partial amendment at K? If we're going to have the trouble of votes, we might as well vote as comprehensively as possible... Additional options on a ballot means that voters have to spend additional time to process the option and differentiate it between all other options. When multiplied by the number of people who vote, that becomes a non-trivial waste of voter's time for options which couldn't find enough seconders who actually support the option. At the moment, this is true, but I feel it's because very few amendments are proper partial amendments, but are actually completely alternative proposals which require individual consideration. Often that's unnecessary. The current SRP seems to penalise humble amendments. If an option can't get enough seconds from people who support that option to satisfy K (or even Q), not enough people support it for it to have a chance of being supported by a majority of people in an election that meets quorum. We currently have two examples where options which didn't exceed 2K seconds went on to win the vote. Does a higher seconding requirement risk of introducing something similar to the threshold effect from elections (such as the German and Turkish national elections) into getting onto a GR ballot? I think the ability to second multiple options (which Don Armstrong initially argued against) may reduce it, but I also suspect seconder fatigue (similar to voter fatigue) means it'll still exist. I thought this debate reminded me of something and I found it... Here's the ICANN membership debating seconding thresholds for election candidates in 2000 http://forum.icann.org/selfnomination/index.html and the ultimate result was that one could stand if 20 out of 76,000 members supported you. http://members.icann.org/rules.html If there's a wish to limit the number of options, should the debian project adopt their absolute limit of 7 options per ballot rule? Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Johannes Wiedersich j...@ph.tum.de wrote: [...] The suggestion is to add a debconf question to each installation from that 'firmware section'. This will honestly point out to users that they are about to install non-free stuff which is not part of debian proper [1]. I like this suggestion. Now the question: Would this section not be better called 'sourceless'? [...] In the context of the current proposal, I would call it something like 'sourceless-uploads' to try to make it clear it is for firmware that is uploaded to some subprocessor and not run by the debian processor. Generally, I think the firmware area is a step forwards in helping more people to visualise the size of the problem/task. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Thiemo Seufer t...@networkno.de wrote: Kurt Roeckx wrote: [...] hardware to make it fully functional. The files in this area should not comply with the DFSG #2, #3 and #4, but should ^ .. need not to comply ..; as already mentioned by others. Just need not comply (no to required after need, or allows). comply with the rest of the the DFSG. 3. This new section will be available on our CD, DVD and other images. .. available to all supported installation methods. s/to/for/ Wearing my l10n-english hat, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote: Sometimes we don't include documentation not because it is sourceless (at any rate, what is the source for a .txt file but that file itself?), but because it is simply non-free. Think about the RFCs: They are not legally modifiable. and there is _good_ reason for that (i.e. if you modify/redistribute RFC821, you might trick somebody into believing that GIVEMEROOTSHELL is a valid SMTP command). That is a good reason for having verifiably digitally-signed copies of the RFCs, but it is not a good reason for using copyright to forbid a general freedom to modify the RFC documents. Hope that explains -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: gr_lenny vs gr_socialcontract
Anthony Towns a...@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 09:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I did not mean this to be argumentative. A rhetorical flourish, yes. The quote is from a US politicial, and the analogy between the constitutions and bill of rights was amusing. Uh, surely it's obvious that following any example from a political arena is going to be much more argumentative than necessary? Politics is the art of making people who disagree with you look stupid and immoral. [...] I hope any debian developer who is also a local councillor (or higher?) would disagree with that. Further, I suggest this sort of belief is one reason why the debian project government seems relatively nasty, noisy ineffective when compared with my small village's council, despite both having about the same budget. There's a distrust of politics in the debian project, which is understandable given the bad actions of some politicians towards freedoms most DDs hold dear. However, if certain rhetorical flourishes (including Uh, surely it's obvious that...) get left at the door, we could get more good stuff done. That said, as someone unfamiliar with US politics, I didn't get that reference at all. Also, I'm off to other stuff. This thread appears to have stopped being useful and I've voted already. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Call for vote (Re: call for seconds: on firmware)
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote: To cast a vote, it is necessary to send this ballot, with the text form (which is embedded later in this ballot) filled out, to a dedicated e-mail address, in a signed message, as described below. Suggest restructuring to simplify:- To cast a vote, complete the text form (embedded later in this ballot) and send the completed ballot in a signed message to a dedicated e-mail address as described below. [ ] Choice 4: Empower the release team to decide about allowing DFSG violations [3:1] Other posts defined in the foundation documents seem to use appoint more than empower - suggested reword:- [ ] Choice 4: Appoint the release team to decide DFSG violations policy [3:1] Would be good to have message-ids or links for the proposals if they're handy. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Final call for votes: GR: Project membership procedures
Neil McGovern ne...@debian.org wrote: With approximately 60 hours remaining, 142 people have voted, out of a potential 1018. This is somewhat of an record for low participation. I deferred voting following reports of error bounces. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: For our own good: splitting the vote. Thoughts?
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population. Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a myriad of other problems that Manoj has identified. Is there any issue-independent way of deciding what's a substitute proposal and what's a proper amendment to the proposal? A quick check suggests that, for example Quick Consensus and Robert's Rules place essentially no limits on the scope of amendments, while Democratic Rules of Order does not allow amendments that negate, change topics or amend amendments. Most deliberative systems seem to limit amendments by some type of resource starvation (time, support of voters), which doesn't seem probable here IMO. I wonder about a limit on the proportion of changed words, but would that work? Thanks for any help, -- 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: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as not blocking the release. [...] It seems that someone doesn't know the meaning of that tag. Would a GR promoting some release manager definition of the meaning of that tag to a postition statement be a simple settlement of much of this dispute? Sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but I'm sick of all these false allegations. Yes, it did look like a personal attack and I'm sick of everyone who's making those. Advance apologies are a signal that the comment probably shouldn't be sent in that form. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] [SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet the DFSG. In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix of component, software, program words, which makes them a mess in that regard. Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!) Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all the noise in 2004? Actually, the DFSG don't use component, software or program but some of the explanations/illustrations do. I think the DFSG could be written exactly, maybe using some system of formal symbols, and there would *still* be disagreements about the meaning. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, sadly. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For our own good: splitting the vote. Thoughts?
Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored, No, you are not being censored. -- 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: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] No matter that the GR is a useless, no-op, anti-ganneff vote, which serves no purpose whatsoever, except to kill any motivation ganneff might have had to facilitate admission of non-packagers into Debian. [...] I hope it won't kill that motivation, because I see the main point of the GR as let's deal with this after the release, instead of burying it in busy times. If it does, then that speaks ill about many project officers IMO. -- 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: Secretary? Delegate? [Was: Draft ballot for Proceedural Vote: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.]
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg4.html I've added assistantNeil McGovern under Secretary to webwml/english/intro/organization.data Hope that's OK, -- 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: DAM has no competency to make changes to membership structure
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] You think it speaks ill of people when they are demotivated by people saying nasty things about them, or ascribing horrible motives to them? Amazing. Me, I would be liable to just break out some beer and watch some movies rather than go online and read the negative things people have been saying, were I in Ganeff's shoes. The negative things people have been saying aren't in the GR. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00103.html I've no doubt that Ganneff is trying to act well, but I feel changes would get a fairer hearing if DDs consider them after the release. If it demotivates *this discussion* for a while (rather than all actions), then that's OK. Also, maybe some behaviour around the GR (like the subject line on this subthread, for example) is demotivating in general, but that's less about the GR and more about social (in)tolerances. When will people learn that abusing people, whether they have a role relationship or not, turns them off and makes them less likely to be enthusiastic and engaged? Forgotten the bit about honey and vinegar? Honey and vinegar sounds like a particularly nasty drink. I think honey and lemon would make people happier. Try it. -- 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: Call for seconds: Revised ballot
Debian Project Secretary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting point. It all depends on the definition of what a resolution is, and whether a resolution can have multiple options, or not. I consider a resolution to be a formal expression of the opinion or will of an official body or a public assembly, adopted by vote. See §A.1 Proposal and §A.1 Discussion and Amendment. [...] While I am tentatively ruling this so, I am still open to feedback, and I would appreciate hearing from anyone who thinks my determination on this issue is at fault, in which case we shall discuss this further. Please would you regard each option as a resolution and allow people to second all of them, or some subset of them if they wish? I think that the options are mutually incompatible (feel free to rule otherwise), so will be on the same ballot anyway, so is there any benefit in making people send N seconding emails when they want to second all those options being on the ballot? If they object to one, they can omit it from their sponsorship. On a related point, I've been disappointed for a while that amendments are used to replace (rather than amend) proposals. I believe requiring people to pick X or Y or Z (instead of X + Y - Z) makes it much harder to develop a consensus. Would any DDs be willing to support a GR that requires amendments to keep a non-trivial part of the proposal? Otherwise, it should be a new alternative resolution. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about Developer Status; - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members; - Because of the strong opposition to the method used to prepare, discuss and decide the announced changes, and without judging their validity; - In accordance with the paragraphs 4.1(3) and 4.2(2.2) of the Constitution; The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, decides: The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce mailing list (Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) are suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)]. In addition, the developers make the following statement: The delegates of the Project leader are asked to not take decisions that are not consensual about the membership procedures of the Project, and to let these procedures change by way of a general resolution if no consensus can be reached. Seconded. - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJAuF/mUY5euFC5vQRAvDiAKCN2+qXvlk81d5JXpEAYaWEcJSv7gCgspej OV2frTRDOEzXCI2TOM6KFJs= =1uOp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 07:39:43PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: Debian's people (i.e. debian-legal and so, even equiped with all the TINLA and IANAL disclaimers) are a well regarded and quite well informed body in this regard. Well-regarded by whom? I consider the current crop of debian-legal participants to have an average (weighted by posting frequency) legal knowledge equivalent to the folks who send debian-www letters demanding we delete evidence of their idiocy from the Internet. Weighted by posting frequency is hardly fair: those who are learning always post more questions and make more mistakes. They're also far more likely to get bogged down in the off-topic general legality discussions which unhelpful people post to -legal and we don't have an effective way to moderate. They'll learn. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I'm arguing that we should not take positions on general political matters around free software that don't affect us. [...] The Mozilla Foundation and Corporation approaches to trademarks have affected us repeatedly in the past. There are also other examples which have affected us, such as ion3 and probably others if anyone wants to go dig around in the archives. So that part of the argument doesn't seem relevant here. [...] The individual members of Debian are quite capable of joining multiple organizations, including ones who specialize in making statements about free software as a concept and tackling issues such as this one. [...] Care to name some? The FSF is an obvious example. Most individual members of the Debian project cannot join the FSF. The FSF offers a fundraising campaign called associate membership but that is not joining in anything similar to the debian project. (I think a few DDs are full members of FSF, but it's not generally true.) So, no alternative organisations have been named. The Debian project is one of very few groups where ordinary free software developers can issue (draft and decide) such a statement about what's affected their project and users. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ===Begin resolution text=== The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few years now; and even though we've chosen not to use the Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla, and Seamonkey trademarks, we still feel that we ought to make our position on this important issue clear. The Free Software community as a whole is based around the notion that one should be allowed to modify software when they feel it necessary; and that the right to such modification and subsequent redistribution is a basic right to users that should not be taken away. The tendency that is apparent in the Mozilla Corporation, which is to use trademark law to enforce certain requirements which we would not usually consider to be characteristic of Free Software, is something that the Debian Project finds disturbing. Free Software is about Freedom; and whether that freedom is restricted through copyright law or trademarks really is of no concern. ===End resolution text=== Basically, only the final paragraph changes. If my seconders can agree with this edited version, I'll retract my original version. I agree and second the edited version, for similar reasons to before. - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFI13jImUY5euFC5vQRAjuwAKCmrHY7CDcsaA2OPkwH6aQEOqzU9gCgrqQv BPhScMgW+oNWxheH/sz5vrI= =mRjO -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is a head-in-sand attitude. Well, that's certainly blunt and honest, but it probably unfortunately makes it clear that there's no room for discussion if your first reaction is that negative. I don't think it's any more a head-in-sand attitude than to expect my neighborhood association to not waste its time on resolutions about the war in Iraq, regardless of my personal opinions on the topic. Even if there's someone who lives in the neighborhood who's an Iraqi veteran. It also looks like there is no room for discussion with the above position, because it seems to prejudge that any matter not obviously immediately directly related means a group wastes its time. I'd hope that the association has ways to prioritise things so that resolutions about the war in Iraq don't hinder the neighbourhood management unnecessarily, but it seems fine to me if such an association wants to take a position on the actions of wider governments. In my own experience, the village council of which I'm currently a member has no power over local or regional building projects or health or major highways, but frequently takes positions on them. They're all handled by larger organisations, but these things affect our community and merely taking a position can help our community. I think that's similar here: the debian project taking a position on this could help our community. Arguing that the debian project is necessarily only packaging and distributing software and mustn't ever do anything else seems rather narrow. Vote against if you don't like the position; argue against if you want to influence the position; please don't simply argue it's off-topic because the growing attempts to use non-copyright restrictions clearly affect free software and so are on-topic. [...] The individual members of Debian are quite capable of joining multiple organizations, including ones who specialize in making statements about free software as a concept and tackling issues such as this one. [...] Care to name some? Getting SPI to make a statement against software patents seemed to get someone arguing at the last minute that SPI shouldn't do such activism - even though SPI has a long-standing position against swpat! The debian project has a process for making statements. If people don't like that, there's a way to remove or limit the power in future. There have been frequent questions about (and misdescriptions of) debian's position about using trademarks to bolt down free software. I believe developing an agreed statement on this is a good move. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to their users on first run of the software. It does not currently require them to accept to it, so they can easily bypass the license by just ignoring it. While they may have changed their position, I don't think it changes the basic problem with Firefox failing to be Free Software due to trademarks. The statement only mentions the EULA as an example of the problem, not as the basic problem. I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software. In short, I don't care whether someone breaks the DFSG with a copyright licence or a trademark licence or a death threat or whatever other tool. It's about freedom, not a few laws. So, I second issuing this statement:- ===Begin resolution text=== The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few years now; and even though we've chosen not to use the Firefox, Thunderbird, Mozilla, and Seamonkey trademarks, we still feel that we ought to make our position on this important issue clear. The Free Software community as a whole is based around the notion that one should be allowed to modify software when they feel it necessary; and that the right to such modification and subsequent redistribution is a basic right to users that should not be taken away. By using trademark law to enforce certain requirements that we do not usually consider to be characteristic of Free Software, such as a requirement for patch review and a requirement to include a particular end-user license, the Debian Project feels that the Mozilla Foundation has now turned the trademarked version of their Free Software into software that is no longer free. ===End resolution text=== Regards, - -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFI0kG+mUY5euFC5vQRAqb2AKCND2gYBkKbsyWUwZuY6ZrhS/5sDgCfZyfR rmmUPot7M9Esxtk5tmEdkCQ= =kJyS -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also note that FSF's page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ says Mozilla's Firefox build includes non-free software. It's actually outdated. Mozilla's Firefox build don't include non-free software anymore, except its logo. You're quite right. As of 3.0.1-g1, the motivation has changed to some non-free files are distributed in the Firefox source tree, and Firefox can recommend non-free plugins but the website doesn't reflect it yet. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnuzilla/2008-07/msg00083.html So I guess we're only fellow-travelling with FSF now. However, my support and second stands on the strength of the other reasons. Thanks, -- 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: Technical committee resolution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:57:08 -0400, Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I would think that in a project with 1000 alleged active members, we could easily limit privileged access to one instance per person without any serious problems. We could. We could also choose quite another set of silly criteria to limit various and sundry things by. The question is, why? Why one? A better criteria is not to limit oneself by arbitrary number games, but see where the maximal benefit to the project lies. If one person has the time or energy to manage one hundred hats, and do a better job of them than other candidates, why deprive the project due Clint's law of pointless limitations? [...] I feel that the above personalisation of argument is unhelpful. I don't believe that we should limit people to one hat, but limiting people to one hat *of this type* might be helpful and merits further consideration. What is this type? Probably we need to re-sort http://www.debian.org/intro/organization to decide that, if people feel it's a good idea. In some of my other groups, people are limited to one privileged role and I understand it helps to protect the organisations against conflicts of interest and BusNumber-type damage. I suspect the debian project is unusual with having so few restrictions, both on which roles may be combined, and on length of service without review. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray dijo [Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:15PM +]: Well, for example, Marc Brockschmidt has spent time writing a platform, canvassing and campaigning, which he suggested he would not have done if an acceptable candidate had already nominated. If an acceptable candidate is nominated now, we've lost that time. [...] In any case, I hope (haven't read it yet) Marc's platform - But so far, I think, loser candidates' platforms have not been a waste of time. [...] Not in general, no, but I'm less convinced about this particular I-don't-want-to-stand-but-no-one-else-has type. Also, the effort in canvassing and campaigning is additional to the platform. Some DDs publish occasional manifestoes which also act as thermometers, such as http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/my_anti-platform:_followup/ Hope that clarifies, -- 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]
DPL Debate Logs (first draft)
The first go at the DPL Debate Logs have been uploaded to http://people.debian.org/~mjr/irc/dpl-debate-2008/ Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q: All: Society, was: Q: Steve McIntyre: 2IC vs. DPL
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] One thing I will commit to (right now) is to encourage people to ignore (or even better, castigate) nay-sayers who have nothing more to contribute to Debian than poisonous tabloid-style rhetoric and negativity. Can the candidates demonstrate an ability to distinguish between nay-sayers who have nothing more to contribute to Debian than poisonous tabloid-style rhetoric and negativity; and contributors who go quietly about their work when things are going well but aren't afraid to question dumb ideas? Is it better to say nothing and work to subvert a bad idea; or to make overt positive alternative suggestions? How should we avoid a chilling effect from fear of being seen to criticise, which could cause Debian to develop to do what is socially popular, rather than technically best? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step independent double-checking in that task. Honestly I don't know. But if it's not, then it gives us at least a precise idea of technical improvement: that process must be quick and the people in charge of steps before account creation should be able to prepare a document ready to be used by a tool that creates the account. The review of that document should be enough and the other checks should be automated by the tool. Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers could understand why the applicant was given an account, if they saw that document? Intrigued, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: Steve McIntyre: 2IC vs. DPL
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:27PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: You served a term as Assistant Project Leader. What are the differences between the job you did then and the job you would do as DPL? Mainly, I would expect to push some more high-profile issues than when I was working with AJ, and also to be more visible. [...] One of those issues pushed as 2IC seemed to be dunc-tank (for example http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/02/msg00019.html ) which was later described as a very good idea on the part of AJ http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00087.html (FWIW, I think it was a very bad implementation of a fairly good idea.) What more high-profile issues could we expect during a Steve McIntyre leadership? Dunc-Tank 2: Dunc Tankier? Also, will Dunc-Tank 1 ever report on www.dunc-tank.org or should we laugh nervously and change the subject now? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers could understand why the applicant was given an account, if they saw that document? We already have that with the short NM report sent to -newmaint. I disagree. They seem suspiciously formulaic and lack the detail. Compare and contrast http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg4.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00065.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00070.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/02/msg2.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/03/msg0.html -- five different authors, but same strange turns of phrase. (For example, answered all my questions about the social contract, DFSG, BTS, etc. in a good way leaps out at me. Not wrong, as such, but that's an unusual way to put it - has any applicant ever been described as answering them in a bad way?) I was mainly thinking of a structured document where all info that need to be integrated in the LDAP are available (Name, Login, Alternate email, Keyid, ...) so that a script can take that as input and do all the job. The report appears to be structured already, even if it's looking like pseudo-English. Would you support adding the extra information needed for LDAP along with replacing the pseudo-English with details needed for easy verification - bug numbers, package names and so on - in a structured way? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It's well known that small task (when they take less than 5 minutes) are usually best done on the fly instead of accumulating them. [...] Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. See Ganging your mosquito tasks http://www.43folders.com/2006/02/01/ganging-tasks for example. I'd like to know whether a DPL candidate is prone to talking out of their hat, or simply didn't give a reference for something they thought was obvious. ;-) Thanks, -- 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: Q: Small tasks best on the fly? was: Q: All: Account creation latency
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: Where is this well known? I thought opinion was divided. [...] I must admit that I've read some Getting Things Done related literature and that this organization method usually suggests to do small tasks on the fly instead of putting them in a TODO list as putting them in TODO list takes almost as much time as doing them. [...] http://wiki.43folders.com/index.php/GTD [...] GTD is quite popular and has been discussed on planet Debian several times together with the Inbox Zero principle... that's why I said well-known. But you're right that I should have given more references. http://www.43folders.com/izero I'm familiar with Inbox Zero and use similar practices myself, even before I knew about it explicitly (thanks to the great gonzo again), but it looks like Just Flippin' Do It has a *really* small threshold under both systems there. That's understandable, else we'd never get out of our inboxes. Is creating accounts really now a sub-two-minute task? If so, that's great, but I believed there was still often a lot of multi-step independent double-checking in that task. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical committee resolution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Why is no one responding to the fact that the last ingestion of new blood did not solve the problems? [...] Myself, I have not yet confirmed whether that claim is fact or not, and if it did not solve the problems, whether it eased them at all. Laying out the evidence in support of the claim would help make that happen faster, but I'm scared to suggest other debian list subscribers do that work. Hope that explains, -- 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: Technical committee resolution
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Let me get this straight. The argument is that since it is hard to remove people for cause in Debian, let us just start removing people at random, even if they are performing well, and maybe, sometime, somehow, that change may lead to an improvement? Firstly, it's not random. It's the oldest. Maybe random wouldn't be so objectionable. Genetic algorithm optimisation of the TC, anyone? Secondly, they can be reappointed if they are performing well, unless the DPL is going to ignore procedure and go against the consensus of DDs - it's happened before, but it's never good when it happens. Thirdly, if this is a major problem with the proposal, one could support Andreas Barth's amendment, or propose another amendment which uses another form of selection. Other TC members can suggest text too, unless all's well with the TC and it can be improved without the pain of a vote, which would be great. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: All DPL Candidates: www.debian.org licensing?
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/03/08 at 16:22 +, MJ Ray wrote: There seemed to be broad consensus on BSD-style as default with other DFSG licences like GPLv2 being allowed, didn't there? I don't think so. Some people want a BSD license, some want the GPL, some want to write their own license. It would look like a good idea to have a single license for the whole website, or at least a license policy (like anything DFSG-compliant and compatible with GPL v2 or later) that won't annoy anybody later. OK, I really thought there was. I'll ping the licence bug to clarify whether there's consensus. I think a policy is possible, but probably not a particular license. Then again, it would look like a good idea to have a single license for the whole distribution, but that's not achievable either, so that's probably not a blocker. Questions about that issue: 1) You seem to think that delegating someone now would be useful. Why? I think we should ask a debian-tied lawyer before doing a lot of unfun work which may turn out to be useless if we get it wrong. I'm not confident that we can do this through SPI unless the DPL or a delegate asks, because some SPI members seem to oppose it without that. Even so, I think SPI is the best route for the project to ask a lawyer. I agree, but why are you asking for a delegation (constitution 5.1.1) instead of simply asking the DPL to tell SPI that X is going to be the interface between -www@ and SPI on that issue. Firstly, I expect this could take longer than one DPL and it's the sort of task that seems to get lost in handovers. Secondly, delegation should make X's task clear to both this project and SPI in a robust way and seemed the most obvious to me. How does the constitution give the DPL a power to tell SPI that X is going to be the interface, except by delegating some aspect of the DPL's power under 5.1.10? Ultimately, after legal advice is seeked, it's still -www@ who is going to decide, no? Maybe. If there's really no consensus, maybe all developers should be asked to throw in their two-penn'orth in a GR. Not great, but one of the few resolution tools the project has. [...] If not, can we ask [a lawyer] of ours, if Raphael becomes DPL? Yes. Thanks, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: All DPL Candidates: www.debian.org licensing?
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/03/08 at 09:57 +, MJ Ray wrote: [...] Secondly, delegation should make X's task clear to both this project and SPI in a robust way and seemed the most obvious to me. How does the constitution give the DPL a power to tell SPI that X is going to be the interface, except by delegating some aspect of the DPL's power under 5.1.10? 5.1.10 answers the money problem. I don't think it answers the authority problem. 5.1.10 currently says:- In consultation with the developers, make decisions affecting property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See §9.). [...] Money is not the only property. In fact, I doubt it's the most important one for this project. Slightly troubled by that misreading. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Re: All Candidates: Do you plan to be prominently visible during your term?
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:44:46PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: and I really haven't seen much from Sam during his term. For example, there's been: [6 dda posts and a blog category] which is pretty comparable to either my own Steve's communication individually during my term, if you exclude the dunc-tank stuff. I'm assuming we're not looking for a DPL to create a hugely controversial project just for the visibility it gives the DPL. [...] Erm, announcements != communication. I think the dunc-tank was quite an example of the difference between the two, with various inputs seemingly ignored. Now, I'm hardly the most involved with the DPL, but I've had substantive replies from Sam the two or three times I've contacted him, compared with responses (seldom replies) followed by non-response from previous DPLs. (It wasn't a language thing AFAICT, as lazily I used English with all three.) So my limited experience of Sam has been that he's improved communications. I'd be interested to know if other DDs felt the same, as well as any comments from those who've interacted with these candidates. Are any of the DDs planning to automate announcements at all, similar to Aigars Mahinov's idea on lines 428/429 of last year's debate? Oh and is Marc Haber wanting to cash in this pledge:- # SamHocevar If I fail to properly report, I shall offer full reimbursement for your annual Debian subscription and a right to spank me at the next DebConf. [22:48] ? Thanks, -- 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: All DPL Candidates: www.debian.org licensing?
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It seems to me that, for this issue to be solved, we first need a clear consensus on debian-www@ about: - the plan we are going to follow I believe we need legal advice on the validity of the various plans before there will be a clear consensus on one. The relevant published legal opinions on relicensing were commissioned by people who appear to have interests in copyright assignments, which the debian project does not share. - the license we are going to use There seemed to be broad consensus on BSD-style as default with other DFSG licences like GPLv2 being allowed, didn't there? It could be a good idea to write a DEP about that, so other developers have a clear document to read and understand (as opposed to a bug log). Maybe. What's the current DEP HOWTO? Questions about that issue: 1) You seem to think that delegating someone now would be useful. Why? I think we should ask a debian-tied lawyer before doing a lot of unfun work which may turn out to be useless if we get it wrong. I'm not confident that we can do this through SPI unless the DPL or a delegate asks, because some SPI members seem to oppose it without that. Even so, I think SPI is the best route for the project to ask a lawyer. 2) Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña's plan include: | b) old contributors to the web site [..] should be contacted and ask to |agree to this license change. | | c) a note should be added to the Debian site [..] describing the |license change [..] and giving a 6 month period for comments. If some old contributors can't be contacted, would a note on the website visible for 6 months be legally enough to move forward with the license change? Later, you suggested shortening that period. Is this legally possible? I expect the validity of using a general notice depends more on whether it was reasonably prominent, rather than having a 6 month comment period, but I don't know: I am not a lawyer. Are you? If not, can we ask one of ours, if Raphael becomes DPL? Hope that clarifies, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Re: Technical committee resolution
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:11:35AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I suggest assigning each open issue to a CTTE member in turn who acts as the chair for that issue (with skipping if the member should recuse themselves because they are directly involved.) [This can be tracked using the owner field in the BTS.] Alternatively, would a ctte secretary help? ie: someone who's not on the ctte, but simply organises votes and discussion on issues, tracking what state things are in. Well, those are all part of a chair's usual remit and if the TC chair wants to delegate some of it to a non-member secretary, that should be their call - leave it open in any reform, removing the current There is no separate secretary for the Committee. The recording of the TC's work is done by sending to a public list, so that part of a secretary's role isn't needed. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Raphael Hertzog: When to commit into repositories of teams?
aj wrote: [...] ...so much for non-adversarial campaigning, I guess. Why? So far, this is only adversarial questioning of a candidate. It doesn't necessarily require adversarial campaigning in reply. Or is aba campaigning for one of the other candidates? FWIW, I think each of the candidates have some doubtful debian deeds worth explaining, but there's only one I expect to get all my-way-or-highway-style adversarial if questioned aggressively. With any luck, we'll see in the campaign-only aeons whether that's correct. Oh and I don't really understand the question: why should anyone stop commits into a repository? You could just ask that they're not put on the release management branch without review. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technical committee resolution
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The Technical Committee consists of up to 8 Developers. Why drop the suggested minimum of 4? Does this mean a one-man tech-ctte would be fine? 3. When there are 8 members, the Project Leader may appoint any Developer to the Technical Committee replacing the longest serving current member, provided there have not already been 2 or more appointments to the Technical Committee during the current Leader's term. What should happen in a tie of service length? Is it necessary to specify the 8 in more than one place? [...] There's nothing stopping the DPL from suggesting the oldest two TC members resigning, then reappointing them (so they become the youngest two TC members), if we actually do want to keep particular people on. [...] Is that healthy? Having a minimum break is pretty common on other groups and might help keep things fresh. Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, I would replace your 2. with the current text, and your 3. with: 3. During any DPL term, the DPL might appoint up to two new members unilaterally. He might replace an existing member, or add them as additional members at his choice, provided the maximum number of eight members is not exceeded. I don't think that makes sense. s/might/may/ or s/might/can/ please. I'd also s/eight// because there seems no need to repeat the maximum size and it could make future amendments smaller. Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about considering ctte members having failed to participate in two consecutive decisions as having resigned? Maybe three rather than two, but I like that idea better than maximum term lengths between appointments, FWIW. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All DPL Candidates: www.debian.org licensing?
Hi DPL candidates! Will you delegate someone to resolve bugs.debian.org/238245 and bugs.debian.org/388141 at long last? That is, get www.debian.org to follow the DFSG and to display better copyright statements. In particular, delegation seems necessary to avoid bureaucratic blocks to getting impartial legal advice. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Campaigning on debian-vote *and* canvassing for help? Is this really what aj meant by summarise their plans for their term? No, this is just answering a question. Do you suggest that he should have delayed the answer until campaining would be allowed? Yes. Candidates should be organised enough to defer a task a few days. If the project is minded to allow such discussion during nominations, we should shorten the discussion-only period, instead of claiming there's some convention that campaigning is limited to the campaign period. I don't really remember the exact periods, and what is supposed to happen when. (And I don't care enough to look it up.) What is the reason we would want a campainless period during nominations? I don't really see any benefit. [...] I want a limit on the election campaign time to try to limit the inevitable politicking from spilling over into more of the year. The benefit would be less time spent on the election, so available for other work. That would also reward early nominations and may help avoid candidates like Marc Brockschmidt putting the time into standing from fear of being left with only one unacceptable late nomination. I don't see how that would result from not campaining during the nomination period (or before it, for that matter). [...] Sorry, it seems I was unclear: shortening the campaign-only time should be accompanied by acknowledging that candidates may campaign during the whole election, as some have done for a few years. So, the sooner a candidate is nominated, the sooner they could start campaigning and that would be a reward for early nominations. Propose it and I'll second. I'm not sure what you want to see proposed, but I think I don't want to do it. ;-) Anyway, why don't you make the proposal yourself? Because I want to see if there's any support before spending effort on drafting. Also, I think a proposal by someone else is more likely to succeed. Finally, I made a similar proposal last year in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/08/msg00102.html but it only got three seconds, amid some claims about campaigning being limited by convention (!) and debate organisation. Hope that clarifies, -- 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: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote [on not campaigning during nominations]: [...] However, I don't agree with you that campaining at any other time would violate the consitution. See below. I never claimed that it would violate the constitution. It's clearly not covered. However, there are claims like the limit is a convention and a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it usually is. -- Wouter Verhelst http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/08/msg00123.html That's no longer true, even if it used to be. Campaigning usually happens before and after the campaign time. I think we should either:- - take advantage of what really happens and shorten the election, or - establish the convention on campaign time limits. [...] That is, IMO we should solve hypothetical social problems by saying we'll solve them reasonably when they are a real issue. [...] This isn't hypothetical. Campaigning has started early for four of the last five elections IIRC. The benefit would be less time spent on the election, so available for other work. I think this is not a real issue. Do you feel we lose volunteer time because people are campaining during the year? Well, for example, Marc Brockschmidt has spent time writing a platform, canvassing and campaigning, which he suggested he would not have done if an acceptable candidate had already nominated. If an acceptable candidate is nominated now, we've lost that time. We could try to save that sort of time by rewarding early nominations with more campaigning opportunities, by officially killing the convention against campaigning during nominations. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I have contacted a few people about helping out with the tasks above (and some I plan to contact) but I can't hand out a definite list of people who are willing to help me at this time. [...] Campaigning on debian-vote *and* canvassing for help? Is this really what aj meant by summarise their plans for their term? If the project is minded to allow such discussion during nominations, we should shorten the discussion-only period, instead of claiming there's some convention that campaigning is limited to the campaign period. Any convention died years ago and candidates who campaign before and after the specified time seem no longer punished for it. That would also reward early nominations and may help avoid candidates like Marc Brockschmidt putting the time into standing from fear of being left with only one unacceptable late nomination. Propose it and I'll second. Could we start the two votes at once to avoid voter fatigue? Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL Debate [Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2008]
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Additional people to help select questions, prod the discussion channels, and otherwise actually make things happen are needed too. slef my biggest flaw is that I'll never be elected DPL [17:02:15] so... I'm happy to try helping with the debate again. Also, any suggestions on changes to the format to make things more useful for the voters are appreciated. [...] Can we collected and circulate the questions for drafted responses in advance, please? 6 minutes is quite a long wait for the replies and I feel it penalises people who find the language difficult. If not, broonie suggested that there should be some warning before dropping the pastebomb (a countdown timer? 1 minute to go... 30s to go...). I think helpers need to be more zealous in getting follow-up questions from the audience, in response to section 1, for use in section 2, but that's in my own hands as much as anyone, I guess. Reviewing my notes from last year, I think we need to be clear about how we intend to handle withdrawn, late and/or absent candidates (such as those involved in road accidents). There were also some audience comments about the army of floodbots so if we could do without them, it would be good. slef I want Mjollnir` as a toy [18:46:14] (The quotes are from #debian-dpl-discuss last year and no, neither of them are entirely serious.) Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Misleading statement in debian-faq s1.5, was: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
Package: doc-debian Severity: wishlist Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But if you want a favour from someone -- like access to some restricted service -- you're much more likely to get it if either (a) that someone wants to do you the favour already; or (b) you approach it as Hi, I'd like to help. There's a bunch of gruntwork that I think would help and that I could do if you'd like me to. I'm not trying to change policy or get any more say in how things work or become famous or whatever, just help out and actually mean it. [...] q class=rambleThis is something where the project isn't managing expectations very well. In some official docs, such as the Debian FAQ http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-basic_defs.en.html debian is described as the only major Linux distribution that is being developed cooperatively which really isn't true, because we don't share basic cooperative values, such as open and voluntary membership, member economic participation, much democratic member control or much concern for community. (For a full list, see http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html - I'd welcome moves to adopt more of them, but I'd expect resistance.) A more accurate description may be that found in places such as http://www.debian.org/intro/about#what which calls it an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. In short, the debian project is still mostly a grace-and-favour association where people need to behave as you describe to get things done quickly. It's not a cooperative project, but we're not exactly clear about that in our descriptions, so DDs really shouldn't be too surprised when people expect project systems to be open and allow autonomous direct action more readily./q Cc'ing BTS for the debian-faq [please trim submit from followups]. Please resend to anyone else calling the debian project a cooperative. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Misleading statement in debian-faq s1.5, was: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 02:26:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote: q class=rambleThis is something where the project isn't managing expectations very well. [...] You seem to be trying a land-grab on the word cooperatively. I don't mean to. I merely suggest that this may be related to the false hopes of openness and democracy that people have about the project and it might be worth avoiding the word in our self-descriptions. That word does not (at all) have to mean as a cooperative in the sense you're assuming. [...] Indeed, it does not have to, but if we describe debian as being developed cooperatively without being clear about what we mean, then some people will get the wrong idea and expect it to be developed by cooperative-like groups. This is similar to when we use free software without any mention of the DFSG, but some DDs seem to be more surprised by the cooperativity(?) misunderstanding than they are about freedom ones now. Hope that clarifies, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. Well, that's like saying they should act on common sense. Why would we ever want to say that it should support an existing situation even if it is not fair? Am I being trolled? I mean that soc-ctte should either: 1. do something to support an existing fair situation; 2. seek replacement of an unfair situation. That is, doing nothing about a problem, becoming another /dev/null alias, should not be a regular option. Please see Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on -project for my last take on this general stance. What bit? placing emphasis on existing practice rather than novel ideas? Seems to me like a soc-ctte that is expected to rubber stamp even unfair practices, but maybe the mail didn't include enough context. I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. Uhh, debian-project is not a miscellaneous list for hiding things, at least it's not any less miscellaneous than debian-vote. -project is listed as Miscellaneous Debian on http://lists.debian.org while -vote is Development. If you feel that's wrong, please file a bug. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred to them, even if it is just to say let the existing processes stand. If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. [...] What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? [...] This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :) Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide. There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in those cases. Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to debian-project... I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the soc-ctte to look at the situation and go there's strong disagreement here and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should decide that we can't really intervene. [...] This raises a question. I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred to them, even if it is just to say let the existing processes stand. If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly on one side), it shouldn't intervene. What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it? Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: electing multiple people
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, as I have said before, we should use straight per-candidate approval voting. [...] and if more people vote `yes' for Alice than vote `no' for Alice then Alice is appointed - regardless of any votes for or against Bob, Carol, etc. Isn't that always going to result in an unrepresentative committee? It looks even more like blackballing than the SPI method. A majority could prevent any minority representatives being elected if they wish, which leads to having only poodles from minorities. Yuck. Should team size be determined in advance? I think so. There is the oft-mentioned optimal team size of about seven active members. http://www.qsm.com/process_01.html http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501 How many more than seven would we need, to expect seven to be active? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: electing multiple people
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So, scrapping that - how does the election of multiple candidates in the SPI board election work? (weasel?) Badly. I think it's similar to election-by-blacklist. It seems particularly vulnerable to prejudice and smears, which should kill off any debian social committee if those influence its election. If we used a similar system, social committee couldn't really predict consensus with most minorities, because only majority-acceptable representatives of minorities (poodles?) would get elected. Proportionality is very important for a social-committee. If it has deep disagreements on certain topics (like Anglo-Victorian values, for example), then it will be correctly reflecting the wider social situation. The important thing will be to give it deadlock-busting working methods. In more detail on the SPI voting system: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.spi.general/482 http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/spi#elections Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: electing multiple people
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] It's not about opinions. It's about people. The problem most often materializes when there are heated opinions, but the fundamental problem is when people can't work together with mutual respect. If you end up with people who intensely dislike each other, the group will have an exceedingly hard time reaching consensus on anything. There are two situations in danger of being confused there: - people who intensely dislike each other; and - people who intensely dislike each other's views. [...] unless there's some feeling that the other members of the committee have one's back so to speak and are willing to put some effort into presenting a united front, I think you're going to have a really serious burnout problem. I would be disappointed and fairly concerned about a social committee which presented a united front in most ways, except how to deal with a problem. I think we should be expecting a social committee that speaks with several voices about a problem, but agrees a course of action. [...] In other words, to what degree is the committee expected to be a decision-making body and to what degree is it expected to be a facilitator? Personally, I expect it to be a facilitator almost always and almost never a decision-making body. Sometimes I expect it to suggest how to decide something, but give everyone involved opportunities to avoid a destructive decision by their own actions. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we have a vote? Thanks for calling the vote. AIUI (tell me if I got this wrong - I'm new to this), I'm supposed to submit this summary: Point 2 stays the same, to allow three weeks buffer zone. and this WML now: vamendments/ vamendmentproposer A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]MJ Ray/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /vamendmentproposer vamendmentseconds ul li A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Aníbal Monsalve Salazar/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /li li A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Simon Richter/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /li li A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /li li A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Wesley J. Landaker/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /li li A HREF=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gaudenz Steinlin/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] /li /ul /vamendmentseconds vamendmenttext pre Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. /pre p Rationale: Having a buffer zone of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the nomination period must be extended. A buffer zone has been included in DPL elections in recent years. /p /vamendmenttext On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: I didn't suggest to forbid campaigning outside the campaigning period. There's no need; a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it usually is. The only cases that I've seen where campaigning occurred outside the campaigning period were either cases where something was interpreted as campaigning while it wasn't intended as such, or a reply to a question that was asked during the last few hours or minutes of the campaigning period. Those are minor things, and they shouldn't be a problem. [...] I didn't see the above message before and I don't agree with the assertions in it. Of course anyone campaigning in an unconventional way will claim it wasn't intended as campaigning if challenged, else they would lose votes. There's no arbiter(sp!) and no fear because it's only a convention. So, using a convention instead of setting a rule one way or the other favours insincere politicians. Nevertheless, that amendment seems dead, so I guess we're stuck with a convention for now. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Since we have been in discussion for so long, would it be OK if we actually started voting on the weekend of the 23rd? [...] Fine by me. May your trip be enjoyable and less tiring than you expect. -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 10:25:11AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after the IRC debate but before voting closes. No! We have a campaigning period for a reason. What you suggest implies campaigning during the voting period, which is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the procedure. When I've objected, I've been reminded that there is no rule against campaigning during the whole election. It is only a convention and not one that's totally respected. If you want to stop that, amend the process to forbid it. I'd second it. My preferred option remains shortening the talking shop time. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a reason: to reduce the period during which there is uncertainty about the DPL's powers. There is no uncertainty about the period of DPL powers. The power transfer date has been clearly stated in recent years, hasn't it? During elections, it's hard for an incumbent DPL to use his powers, for fear of stuff like http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00162.html happening. Posting to d-d-a is power of ~all DDs. In fact, that's not the DPL I'm complaining about. It would not have hurt for the 2IC to delay that announcement, or at least part of it, for a week. That's just one example of campaigning happening outside the campaign-only period, which is the motivation for the other amendment I proposed. [...] Right after the election (or vote, if you please), if the DPL-elect is not the incumbent DPL and was elected on a platform that is sufficiently different from the incumbent DPL's platform and/or conduct as DPL, then having the incumbent DPL stay in office for too long is questionable. The election period does not end when the vote ends, and so your amendment defeats the whole purpose of aj's proposal. The DPL-elect has not taken office when the vote ends for years now, and that hasn't been a problem, has it? It would take a really petty DPL to use their powers to sabotage the DPL-elect in the way being suggested. Indeed, such acts are probably against the DPL procedures. If we ever elect a really petty DPL, we've far bigger problems than the handover weeks! This amendment merely normalises the handover. Please support it. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray wrote: Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral panel than now. [...] It's not been my practice to discriminate in accepting people for the panel; so it should be as neutral as possible. [...] I didn't mean to suggest that you discriminated. Merely that panellists self-selected after seeing some nominations this year. The time this year was decided about 5 days after nominations closed:- Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html Right; I imposed a time limitation on the responses from the candidates to the debate schedule, and a rapid last call to the scheduled time. I don't think that time can be cut down very much [...] OK. Can you remember/extract what happened when between 24 Feb and 2 Mar? Did you contact candidates when they nominated or after close of nominations? Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I, as a voter, would also like to have ample time for discussion about various topics after the IRC debate. [...] a week for discussion really does sound to me like too little time. Note that there could still be up to three weeks for discussion after the IRC debate but before voting closes. Also, I think cutting the talking shop campaign-only period is still worth it, even if the IRC debate wouldn't happen in its current form. It looks like it didn't happen in 2004, or before 2002. Any more seconds for the top of the thread to at least put this as an option on the ballot, please? Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to: reduce the length of DPL election process
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:12:15 +0100, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Summary: reduce the campaign-only period to one week. [...] This would probably mean that organizing the debate might have to go; since the time period for identifying the candidates, determining what time slots would work for them, the organizers, and the audience would shrink, to the point that it is unlikely that there would be any time for a post debate followup period to ask for clarifications and all. Would it? The organisers and most time slot limitations could be identified before nominations close and the possibilities announced. The organisers were already being identified before nominations closed this year, after all:- Organisers sought 15 Feb 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/02/msg00150.html Nominations closed 25 Feb 2007 http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 Asking before nominations open probably would get a more neutral panel than now. Candidates could be asked times as soon as they are nominated, with a preference for an early debate. The time this year was decided about 5 days after nominations closed:- Announced 2 Mar 2007 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/03/msg00023.html While we're shortening the election, maybe the debate could be cut down from three hours, if it would make it simpler to organise. That would also reduce the amount of material generated for voters to read. Post-debate followup could still have nearly three weeks - as I was rudely told this year, it was only convention that used to discourage campaigning outside the campaign-only period, wasn't it? That convention seems to be ignored fairly often in recent years. So, I don't see why the debate wouldn't still happen if wanted. Would Don Armstrong (lead organiser this year AIUI) like to post his opinion? Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
duck period).
I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read:
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post
becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
and I ask for seconds.
Regards,
- --
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGtv1tmUY5euFC5vQRAhiYAJ4+xFCBeWWsx3/a4vYgawPczh8R2QCgjPUs
IdfLHM6ubbxd9NHnmGmyv4A=
=Jv11
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure if the formulation proposed by your amendment is totally clear. [...] It's as clear as it is now: DPL (not DPL-elect). The end of the polling period is not necessarily the election date. Notice polling closed before the DPL's election for a few years now: http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_002 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_001 http://www.fr.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_001 This is not something new in the amendment I proposed. Hope that explains, -- 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: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Steve McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose: From AJ's original mail: ... Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an extra week for DPL elections seems unnecessary. I see that as a reason to reduce the voting period, not the election. Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems like a win to me. YMMV. Such arbitrary calculations aren't reasons. One can just as well note that the DPL election period is only approximately 0% of the period where the DPL's decisions can have effects. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070709 15:27]: I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different packages successfuly for my customers since several years. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you're one of the people who I don't want to upload to the Debian archive. Any proposal which will allow uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me. Would you explain why, please? Is this about Michelle Konzack in particular or a wider class of users? Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second the following proposal (by my count it is still missing at least two seconds, if anybody is interested in seconding). How can anyone second that in its current state? It's rather buggy. I like the idea, but please withdraw your seconds until the worst bugs are fixed. If that passes as-is, the project will look sillier. Look at the first phrase for an example of the litter: The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with limited access, and resolves to 1) A new keyring will be created [...] ...resolves to a new keyring will be created? 8-S I think it's rather disppointing that the OP hasn't accepted any of the amendments I previously posted in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00073.html Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposal - obvious wording bugfix amendment to Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I propose the wording changes in the diff below and request seconds. I have tried to include only wording bugfixes. In particular, this does not remove jetring maintainers from section 1, change section 3's conditions or remove section 4's advice. These changes were previously suggested with the others in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00073.html and there was no objection. Recently, Kalle Kivimaa suggested these should be proposed as a formal amendment in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00192.html Wording bugfix proposal - --- dmpgr.txt.orig2007-06-27 11:44:56.0 +0100 +++ dmpgr.txt 2007-06-27 12:04:42.0 +0100 @@ -1,50 +1,50 @@ Debian Maintainers Proposal The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with - -limited access, and resolves to +limited access, and resolves 1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring. - - It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring - - tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to: + It will initially be maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring + tool, with commit privileges assigned to: * the Debian Account Managers (Joerg Jaspert, James Troup) * the New-maintainer Front Desk (Christoph Berg, Marc Brockschmidt, Brian Nelson) * the FTP masters (James Troup, Ryan Murray, Anthony Towns) * the Debian Keyring maintenaners (James Troup, Michael Beattie) * the Jetring developers (Joey Hess, Anthony Towns, Christoph Berg) The team will be known as the Debian Maintainer Keyring team. Changes to the team may be made by the DPL under the normal rules for delegations. - - The keyring will be packaged for Debian, and regularly uploaded + The keyring will be packaged for Debian and uploaded to unstable. 2) The initial policy for an individual to be included in the keyring will be: - - * that the applicant acknowledges Debian's social contract, - - free software guidelines, and machine usage policies. + * that the applicant accepts Debian's social contract + and machine usage policies. * that the applicant provides a valid gpg key, signed by a Debian developer (and preferably connected to the web of trust by multiple paths). - - * that at least one Debian developer (preferable more) is willing - - to advocate for the applicant's inclusion, in particular to the - - fact that the applicant is technically competent and good to work + * that at least one Debian developer (preferably more) is willing + to advocate the applicant's inclusion, in particular + that the applicant is technically competent and good to work with. All additions to the keyring will be publicly announced to the debian-project list. - -3) The initial policy for removals for the keyring will be under any of the +3) The initial policy for removals for the keyring will be to remove a maintainer in the following circumstances: * the individual has become a Debian developer * the individual has not annually reconfirmed their interest - - * multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's + * multiple Debian developers have requested removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to work with. @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ 4) The initial policy for Debian developers who wish to advocate a potential Debian maintainer will be: - - * Developers should take care in who they choose to advocate, + * Developers should take care about who they choose to advocate, particularly if they have not successfully participated as an Application Manager, or in other mentoring roles. Advocacy should only come after seeing the individual working effectively within @@ -78,13 +78,13 @@ * none of the uploaded packages are NEW * the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file matches the - - key used (ie, maintainers may not sponsor uploads) + key used * none of the packages are being taken over from other source packages * the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or experimental lists the uploader in the Maintainer: or Uploaders: - - fields (ie, cannot NMU or hijack packages) + fields * the usual checks applied to uploads from Debian developers pass Wording bugfix proposal Seconds or comments appreciated. - -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal, updated
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] After that, the applicant could apply for the ability to upload already-sponsored packages, and leave it at that. The key would be added to the keyring (a separate keyring if needed for technical reasons). If the applicant wanted, they could apply for other things (at the same time or later), such as a login to Debian machines, unrestricted upload ability, GR/voting ability, etc. Those sub-applications would trigger different actions such as a full PP or TS, or whatever [...] Does anyone agree? If there is some agreement, perhaps we could draft an amendment? I think that's an interesting change with which I'd probably agree. I'm no longer willing to spend time working on NM/DM, so won't draft. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal - Use Cases
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] == N-M Delays This one suck, because NM delays are mostly fixeable, and DM will just make them not painful at all for DD, depriving the system to be fixed. This is exactly the use case I fear. That's why I'd like some efforts put in NM to fix some parts before considering DM again. [...] my proposal to revamp some bits of NM [...] Again I see this idea that NM can be fixed without starting to build a new implementation. I believe that the current system is broken by design: there are too many single points of failure/delay and it tests the wrong things. What evidence is there that NM can be fixed without introducing a DM-like system to train and prove NMs? Its current owners seemed determined just to throw more people at the broken system with some minor tweaks, while rejecting beneficial reforms like bad-advocate-bans, AM-led teams and NM worklogs - see http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/04/threads.html#00163 What happened to your reform proposals? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Don't expect to make the NM system evolve if you can't be bothered to get implicated however (usual free software rule). No no no - usual free software rule would allow creating a new implementation and replacing or working around the broken-design one, fixing the broken design from outside. If, as the above suggests, the NM team are not receptive to ideas from people who won't take part in the current broken design, then let's implement DM and start fixing NM from outside. I can be bothered, but I really believe the NM system would be a waste of my time, a waste of NMs' time and not a good entry control to debian, so I don't want to help it continue in its current form. The main things tested by NM now seem to be tolerance of boredom, stupid questions and poor social skills of DDs, along with the ability to paraphrase from key docs, which are not really key indicators of who will be a good DD. I think my sponsorship of zobel, damog, eriks, ianb and many others has been more helpful to debian than working within today's broken NM system. I welcome DM as giving me something less soul-destroying than NM to offer maintainers as a productive next step towards DDship. Now we're another year on, NMs are still often given make-work tasks, still seem to wait arbitrary lengths of time, still rely for too much on one AM for far too long and restart with a new AM in case of problems (if they are lucky). We had some AM replacements recently. We're improving on that front. Myon just need to get some more confidence in doing that and saying to some AM that they have not been very good, that they should concentrate on something else in Debian. Replacing AMs doesn't stop the process depending too much on one Application Manager for too long. AMs are misnamed. They are not simply managing the applications - they are training and assessing too, which should be done by other people, in part or entirely, to spread workload, give a rounded training and reduce corruption opportunities. Many people who would be happy to get involved in the current NM are not going to be good educators. The involvement in a key role like AM Manager of someone who posts bad medical advice to troubled people doesn't improve my opinion of NM either. Hope that explains, -- 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: How does NM work? (was: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal)
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] main things tested by NM now seem to be tolerance of boredom, stupid questions and poor social skills of DDs, along with the ability to paraphrase from key docs, which are not really key indicators of who will be a good DD. When I passed NM in early 2003 (I think), it was completely different to that. Can you point me to the information what has changed? Or may it be that this depends very much on the AM? Yes, I believe it depends much on the AM, and some on the history of the NM. I'd expect daniels to be fairly good (but he's no longer an AM) and maintaining famous packages like tex probably speeds up others. This is part of my complaint: it's bad for balance and for consistency for NM to depend so much on multi-function AMs and their work. Moving to an NM-portfolio system would help fix that. However, my data is limited in two ways: firstly, the NM process does not produce much data beside that summarised on https://nm.debian.org/ - indeed, Neil McGovern was flamed by Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt for publishing *too much* detail of his review of my ex-sponsoree eriks - and secondly, I have only independently reviewed about a dozen people. If it will change anyone's opinion, I'm willing to run a wider but less detailed survey about this. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If I wouldn't resign, I would feel like I'd too support the decision, even if I voted against it. Unlike the DPL votes, I think that dissent would be public, so it's obvious who didn't support the decision and very rarely a resigning matter. This is one reason why the DPL should follow consensus, not majority, because it's a pain getting recall votes to document that we don't support a particularly bad leader. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with limited access, and resolves to s/resolves to/resolves/ # resolves to a new keyring will be created? 1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring. It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to: s/be initially maintained/initially be maintained/ # grr, adverb! s/be.*, with/have/ # I don't think method should be specified that much. s/priveleges/privileges/ # unless other countries spell it like that * the Debian Account Managers (Joerg Jaspert, James Troup) * the New-maintainer Front Desk (Christoph Berg, Marc Brockschmidt, Brian Nelson) * the FTP masters (James Troup, Ryan Murray, Anthony Towns) * the Debian Keyring maintenaners (James Troup, Michael Beattie) * the Jetring developers (Joey Hess, Anthony Towns, Christoph Berg) /Jetring/d # Why should they get those powers? The team will be known as the Debian Maintainer Keyring team. Changes to the team may be made by the DPL under the normal rules for delegations. The keyring will be packaged for Debian, and regularly uploaded to unstable. s/, and/ and/ # no , needed in front of and s/regularly // # meaningless - specify frequency if required 2) The initial policy for an individual to be included in the keyring will be: * that the applicant acknowledges Debian's social contract, s/acknowledges/accepts/ # is this what is meant? free software guidelines, and machine usage policies. s/, free software guidelines,/ # part of the SC anyway * that the applicant provides a valid gpg key, signed by a Debian developer (and preferably connected to the web of trust by multiple paths). * that at least one Debian developer (preferable more) is willing s/preferable/preferably/ to advocate for the applicant's inclusion, in particular to the s/advocate for/advocate/ s/to the fact// # not needed fact that the applicant is technically competent and good to work with. All additions to the keyring will be publicly announced to the debian-project list. 3) The initial policy for removals for the keyring will be under any of the following circumstances: s/under any of/to remove a maintainer in/ # above doesn't make sense to me * the individual has become a Debian developer * the individual has not annually reconfirmed their interest * multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to work with. s/the individual's// # not needed s/non-spurious reasons.*work with/good reason, such as poor uploads, \ failing to fix bugs, going MIA or being banned from debian services./ # I think any unreasonably difficult should get banned elsewhere. * the Debian Account Managers have requested the individual's removal for any reason. s/the individual's// # not needed 4) The initial policy for Debian developers who wish to advocate a potential Debian maintainer will be: * Developers should take care in who they choose to advocate, s/in who/about who/ particularly if they have not successfully participated as an Application Manager, or in other mentoring roles. Advocacy should only come after seeing the individual working effectively within Debian, both technically and socially. s/Advocacy should.*technically and socially.// # I don't really like this paragraph because it is not instructive, but # the second sentance is bad advice IMO. It is worse than the NM # advice for advocates, suggesting it's OK to advocate a DM just because # they can operate in our current somewhat dysfunctional social mix. * Advocacy messages should be posted to debian-newmaint or other relevant public mailing list, and a link to that mail provided with the application. * If a developer repeatedly advocates individuals who cause problems and need to be removed, the Debian Maintainer Keyring team may stop accepting advocacy from that developer. If the advocacy appears to be malicious or particularly careless, the Debian Account Managers may consider removing that developer from the project. 5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring provided: * none of the uploaded packages are NEW * the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file matches the key used (ie, maintainers may not sponsor uploads) s/(ie.*)/ # That's not all being in Maintainer stops:
Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help. Is that true? Is the NM team awaiting help to improve the process, or is it only awaiting help to operate the current process? Last year, I suggested improving the NM process into something like a modern education system by splitting the training, assessment, moderation and awarding; and making the process more focused on an NM work portfolio instead of the AM report. I remember some off-list emails, but I don't remember the specific reasons why it floundered. Now we're another year on, NMs are still often given make-work tasks, still seem to wait arbitrary lengths of time, still rely for too much on one AM for far too long and restart with a new AM in case of problems (if they are lucky). The Debian Maintainers model would be a good way to build an NM portfolio, so I support the idea. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
