Re: [DRAFT] Maximum term for tech ctte members
Hi, Anthony Towns: Technical Committee members are encouraged to serve for a term of between three and six years. What, you seriously want to not increase the amount of Legalese in our policy? The shame. :-P and six years as an upper bound since it gives a bit more flexibility than five years Me like. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi, Holger Levsen: After reading https://www.debian.org/vote/2014/vote_003 in full again […] […] I'm also utterly disgusted that this GR was proposed by Ian […] Everybody please take a step back and read https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/11/msg2.html before continuing this subthread. In an ideal world, to be frank, you would have done that _instead_of_ starting/continuing this subthread … -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Unsubscribing - let's use mailing list bans more frequently.
Hi, Charles Plessy: I just suddenly wondered... How come Debian lists are trolled about systemd and not the lists on FreeDesktop.org ? Probably because instigating yet another endless discussion, and thereby preventing some systemd proponents from getting more useful work done, is more likely to succeed here … -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: userspace virtual terminals
Hi, Marco d'Itri: ... which is the result if one has one's eyes tightly shut. User space replacements for Linux and BSD kernel virtual terminals have already existed, and been written, for years. There's a whole non-Anglophone I am not an expert of this issue, but I think it is fair to assume that if they have not replaced yet the current kernel console, notwithstanding the frequent requests for a replacement by kernel developers, then they probably are not the right tool for this and we still need one. While kernel developers have asked for replacements, there has been no concrete threat of deprecating any kernel features, which would guide (a) the authors of such tools what they still need to implement, and (b) distributions on what to experimentally disable in their kernels so that all of this can be tested. So, the first step would probably be to ask on LKML. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141107151020.ga23...@smurf.noris.de
Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling
Hi, Philip Hands: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- That CfV should have had a Reply-To: line … -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Can you all please stop?
Hi, Andrew McGlashan: The trouble is that the hedgehogs seem to be going for the /easy/ option of giving in to systemd, rather that thinking about what is actually best in the interests for their works ... perhaps systemd is the best for them because it is becoming the tyranny of the default [1], That article talks about default settings in software, particularly WRT privacy. I don't think it's particularly relevant in this discussion, esp. (a) this is about differing sets of features, (b) Upstream _has_ thought about whether to support other init systems' interfaces (and decided the time required to do that can be spent better elsewhere). going to be hard to revert later (a) why should we want to do that? (a1) if we ever do it, it's going to be an init with a comparable feature set. there is none, not now anyway (b) it's not, given the shims and/or config file translators we already have rather than go the /easy/ way and succumb to systemd. Do you really think that you can sway anybody's opinion here by comparing systemd to an infectious disease? And yes, it's easy. System administration and troubleshooting is _way_ easier with systemd than with anything else I've laid my hands on. Sometimes, the easy way is a Good Thing. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141031065915.gf3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, Florian Lohoff: There are tons of people who think that all the above functionality does not belong to a init systemd or ecosystem. There are also tons of people who could care less, as long as it gets the job done. Then there are tons of people who are _very_ happy about the fact that systemd enables them to do a significant part of their job a whole lot faster and safer. There are also tons of people who are simply lazy and think that every single line of code that the existence of systemd and its ecosystem allows them to remove, or not write in the first place, is a net win. Arguments by popularity are not going to sway anybody here. Otherwise I could shut you up with a simple most other distros have switched and are mostly-happy with it. :-P It will push _some_of_ our users, lobbyists and con-systemd devs away. Good. The rest of us can then finally focus on our real job(s) again. The problem starts with naming all of them systemd-foobar. You know what? (a) not all of them are, (b) you avoid naming conflicts that way. Tools which are designed to be universally installable simply can't have name collisions. I'd very much like to use nspawn or some other cool short name in place of systemd-nspawn every time I start a process in a chroot, but the idea that somebody is already using that command name for something else isn't too far-fetched. Thus, IMHO this is a feature. Of course, if you _insist_ on treating this like an intentional ego-boost, instigated by systemd's creators, then I can't stop you, just as you can't prevent me from thinking that you're silly. A lot of the oldtimers (like me) would agree to this which i read in rant about systemd: Arguments by ranting are not going to convince anybody either. Because confident young men in a hurry to make their own mark on the world have little time for learning the tools or the lessons of the past. If Lennart's string of talks about systemd at various Linux conferences during the last couple of years had been a one-way street, he'd not have been re-invited in the first place, and nobody would have adopted the thing. Also, some of us somewhat-old-timers think that the lessons of the past (and the desire to finally do better, after futzing around the problem space's periphery for the last twenty years or so) are precisely the reason why they *like* (most of) what systemd is doing. Every time someone tells me about the shiny new features i must think of this. Every time I read a rant like this, I think that the ranters are unable to conceive of the fact that people (in particular, Lennart) are actually able to learn from their mistakes. Systemd is _not_ like pulseaudio in its infancy. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030094302.gc3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, Svante Signell: And OpenSUSE also dropped support: Of course RHEL and Fedora dropped sysvinit support, they are Redhat derived. Can anybody guess where systemd is devloped? Well, OpenSUSE (and several others who have by now switched to systemd) are not. So? Please stop the corporate bashing. Yes, RH employs people who work on systemd. That does NOT by itself imply that they're trying to push an inferior, locked-in, or _whatever_ solution down our collective throats. Companies behave rationally (assuming that 'my first priority is making money' is rational, but that's a different topic). The corollary is: if transitioning to systemd would waste everybody's time and effort, RH wouldn't do it. For the very simple reason that the faster RH's sysadmins can solve their customers' problems, the more money they make. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030162418.gd3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, Svante Signell: Why do you cut out the most important part of that message? You all trigged on the first part, I should not have mentioned any company at all, sorry :( Oh well, if you insist: The more important that Debian does not drop support for sysvinit then, until alternatives have stabilized :) (and systemd/uselessd is deferred to PID 2). PID 1 should be as small as possible, see a proposed implementation in: http://ewontfix.com/14/ The first sentence is a non-sequitur. We're not the ones who drop support for sysvinit, Upstream does that. For the moment we're working on things like systemd-shim to mitigate that decision. What else do you want us to do instead, keep old versions of Gnome (and its dependencies, like ConsoleKit :-/ ) (and KDE and whatever else) around and working? not likely. The second sentence expresses your personal opinion without arguing in its favor. IMHO http://ewontfix.com/14/ is misguided if not wrong; the implementation will not support a couple of use cases that happen to be important for some of us. Like restarting init after you upgrade your libc, or cleanly shutting down your system, or starting an emergency shell if /etc/rc fails to run for whatever reason. Yeah, if systemd ever dies you get an automatic kernel restart. So? If your PID2 fails under this implementation, you get a hung system with no way to reboot it. Which is worse. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141031031930.ge3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: `systemd --system` as a viable way out of the systemd debate?
Hi, Andreas Florath: Technical details, patches (hacks!) and status can be found on github [1] If you proceed with exploring this (IMHO you should), could you please teach it to check for getpid()==1 in _one_ place, where you can override things (perhaps by adding a new mode '--mostly-system')? That way might even be acceptable to systemd upstream. Sprinkling #if 0 all over the place isn't going to be. :-P -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141029152628.ga3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
Hi, Ian Jackson: If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision. As opposed to us having this discussion _now_ because some people apparently cannot accept the fact that Debian works quite well without it. (Otherwise there would be no systemd-shim.) If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over individual systemd dependencies. No fear-mongering, please. That's not the problem. The problem is the possibility of packages wich requires systemd's syslog replacement, its cron replacement, or its ntpd replacement. systemd does not replace syslog. It adds its own logging system which, like logind (and the logind back-end service implemented by systemd-as-PID1), adds features which some programmers, like those of Gnome/KDE/whoever, want to rely on – not out of spite, but because it makes their job a whole lot easier. And if that happens with journald, I fully expect that somebody will step up and provide a replacement implementation (either of the daemon, or the underpinnings it needs) that works without systemd-as-pid1. Just like systemd-shim. And this will happen without requiring your GR. Just like systemd-shim. This is what system's opponents are calling `lock-in'. I agree. This is not lock-in. Lock-in is Adobe pushing a closed standard like Flash (random example off the top of my head, not intended to be particular to Adobe) and then refusing to publish the specs. Debian is free software. If you want a second implementation which does what you want, the way you want it, then write it yourself. Or motivate somebody else to do it. A GR which forces my code to be compatible with Y, even if X is included in Debian (worse, even if X is the designated stanard way to do whatever in Debian), is not an acceptable form of motivation to me. I also may be missing something, but in what way would my code is in Debian, but if you want to run it you'll have to use X instead of Y in any way better for our users than my code is not in Debian? (Assuming it's useful and otherwise desireable code, of course. :-P ) -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141029190303.gb3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Hi, Josh Triplett: There's a reason that systemd has had a meteoric adoption rate: it provides a huge number of features people not only want, but have wanted for years. Or didn't even know they wanted. Or simply didn't have *time* to implement a workaround for. The integrated logging which systemctl status prints is a prime example. Yes, there have been a number of replacement inits, but every one of them just scratched an itch or two, so the perceived benefit to switching to it was too small. None of them ever tried to take away _all_ the itchy scratchy bits. In practice, demanding that packages work with all init systems, or even with *two* init systems, demands that they support the least-common-denominator of functionality provided by those init systems. That effectively makes any new feature added to an init system useless until duplicated. Not always. Take socket activation, for instance. It's reasonably easy to implement, and simply a no-op on any non-systemd machine. And in many cases, the systemd-invented services and features fill a gap for which no previously implementation existed, so used to work before is quite inaccurate. Many daemons have implemented painful workarounds. (Painful because they come with their own set of bugs … and implementing them anew in every daemon that needs the features is wasted effort.) A quick look at my system: * collectd has a restarter (C) * asterisk has a watchdog (C) * mysqld has a logger (C) and a restarter (shell) * rabbitmq has an uid-setter (shell, calling 'su -c …', with broken quoting) I expect their (eventual) unit files to do away with all of that. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141025140455.gg4...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Hi, j...@joshtriplett.org: Personally, I'd actually love to see a port of systemd (a *complete* port of systemd) to be capable of running in system mode without being PID 1. Why would you need to port it? You can do that today quite easily; just say systemd --system. I have no idea what that does WRT cgroups management, and obviously it won't be able to cleanly shut down the system, but AFAIK everything else should work. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141025143437.gh4...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Running systemd with PID != 1, coexisting with other inits
Hi, Josh Triplett: Well, *that's* useful; thanks! I previously had the impression that systemd did not support this at all. Also see systemd-nspawn(1), a chroot-on-steroids which can boot an entire subdirectory (like the result of 'debootstrap') without messing around with /usr/sbin/policy-rc.d and/or endangering the rest of your system (broken sys5rc files with killall in them, network reconfigu- ration, etc.). This seems like a sensible, sustainable, long-term solution for supporting multiple init systems as PID 1, while still allowing services to make use of systemd-specific functionality. (Much like services today could depend on runit.) Thoughts? You'd need to teach this sub-systemd to not run units for which a sys5rc file exists, if sys5rc happens to be active. Other than that (and some research about the cgroups issue) I suspect that the main problem would be social rather than technical, for reasons I suppose I don't need to elaborate. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141025181100.gi4...@smurf.noris.de
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Hi, Charles Plessy: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. While I disagree with the statement that not all questions have been answered. the above re-wording is less controversial, which is a Good Thing (in this case, at least). -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Hi, Joey Hess: Luca Falavigna wrote: The Technical Committee decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system. The tech committe made a separate ruling on this question, and decided: For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. http://bugs.debian.org/746715 So, your proposal actually overrules this decision of the tech committe. Really? To me, For the record, the TC expects does not introduce a ruling. It seems to be, rather, a strongly-worded but informal declaration how the TC is likely to rule, should a maintainer fail to meet this particular expectation. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Hi, Joey Hess: Well, at least I've found yet another reason to perfer to not vote on this GR: It's too darn complicated to understand the procedural hacking that's going on. Well, vote them below FD then. Except for the nice two-paragraph we don't need no stinkin' GR amendment that's going to be one of the options, of course ;-) -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Hi, Charles Plessy: --- The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. --- Seconded. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Hi, Ian Jackson: or it might be that all our daemon packages end up adopting some common startup framework whose implementation in the sysvinit package is buggy or defective, or something. Mmh. s/all/many/ s/adopting some common startup framework/using socket activation/, which *surprise* is only implemented by systemd. (Disregarding upstart's defective version of same for the moment.) I think naming any particular init in this GR is not a good idea. So we should use convoluted wording instead, and leave it to every DD to mentally substitute the convolutions with systemd / sys5rc as appropriate? I don't know what that's supposed to achieve, but then I don't know what your GR is supposed to achieve either, so I suppose that's all right. :-P -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed amendement: be more careful when proposing a GR.
Hi, Charles Plessy: This is why I am proposing this amendement, to say: “this GR was a bad idea, please do not do it again”. I would not regard it as an amendment, but as a separate alternative option on the ballot. If I were you, I'd add another paragraph, like Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. and then formally ask for seconds. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141018153127.ga24...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Alternative proposal: reaffirm maintainers technical competence over the software they maintain
Hi, Lucas Nussbaum: While I understand your concerns, I think that it is highly unlikely that we will decide to change the default init system to something that would break existing packages without a known reasonable way to fix them. Exactly. We decided to change our (default) init system. Work to make sure that everything works both with the new and the old (or rather, pretty much any other) init system is ongoing. This work started before this GR came to be, and it will cwcontinuehappen afterwards, regardless of how this vote turns out. The whole thing is therefore, essentially, a waste of time. IMHO. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Seconded. - begin proposal -8 Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its default init system for the next release. The technical committee decided not to decide about the question of coupling i.e. whether other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system. However, the technical committee stated in #746715 that [it] expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing support without a compelling reason. The Debian Project states that: Software should support as many architectures as reasonably possible, and it should normally support the default init system on all architectures for which it is built. There are some exceptional cases where lack of support for the default init system may be appropriate, such as alternative init system implementations, special-use packages such as managers for non-default init systems, and cooperating groups of packages intended for use with non-default init systems. However, package maintainers should be aware that a requirement for a non-default init system will mean the software will be unusable for most Debian users and should normally be avoided. Package maintainers are strongly encouraged to merge any contributions for support of any init system, and to add that support themselves if they're willing and capable of doing so. In particular, package maintainers should put a high priority on merging changes to support any init system which is the default on one of Debian's non-Linux ports. For the jessie release, all software that currently supports being run under sysvinit should continue to support sysvinit unless there is no technically feasible way to do so. Reasonable changes to preserve or improve sysvinit support should be accepted through the jessie release. There may be some loss of functionality under sysvinit if that loss is considered acceptable by the package maintainer and the package is still basically functional, but Debian's standard requirement to support smooth upgrades from wheezy to jessie still applies, even when the system is booted with sysvinit. The Debian Project makes no statement at this time on sysvinit support beyond the jessie release. This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override clause in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February. The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie stands undisturbed. However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text above. -- end proposal --8 -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi, Kurt Roeckx: Can I ask people to move discussion that is not relevant to the vote to some other place? Please don't. Personally, I do not want -devel to get swamped with yet another discussion about this. Or -release, for that matter. If it passes (which I consider to be sufficiently unlikely to wonder why the *censored* Ian even bothered, but whatever), _then_ these lists are the right places to discuss the implications. Until then, let's keep it here. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed amendement: be more careful when proposing a GR.
Hi, Charles Plessy: --- The Debian project asks its members to be more considerate when proposing General Resolutions, and in particular to take care that the proposed GR has actual chances to be accepted, considering that GRs is a disruptive process regardless the outcome of the vote. --- Slightly reworded: The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. In particular, a proposed GR should have an actual chance of being accepted. This should probably be part of (the rationale for?) our constitution. It's not part of the current GR, despite being motivated by it. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Hi, Lucas Nussbaum: For example, Ian's software may not require a specific init system to be pid 1 could be abused by introducing a systemd-clone package in the archive Please try to ignore maleficial intent and similar failure modes. If we'd go that way, not only would we need to define (and capitalize) every second word, but the GR proposals would be a lot longer – and correspondingly harder to understand / apply correctly. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017141256.ga12...@smurf.noris.de
Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi, Brian May: If people feel strongly that init system XYZ should be supported, then presumably somebody will do the work to make sure it is supported, and it does work. As I believe is the case now. Correct. But this proposal would make *something* RC buggy until *somebody* writes some software, and it's not at all clear which thing should get the bug, who that somebody is, or what happens if no *somebody* steps up -- do we drop Gnome? (Or whichever software next exhibits a problem along these lines.) In this case, some people stepped up and wrote that something – because they saw a need for it. Fine, superb, this is how Debian should work. Did work, even without this GR. What a surprise … On another topic, I think we need a GR stating that all software should work 100% with any window manager, especially my favourite window manager, Awesome. Same problem. Same solution: either somebody is motivated enough to do the work (and, hopefully, Upstream will take the patches), or interoperability will not happen. Making up other issues along these lines is left as an exercise to the reader. In either case, a GR forcing RC bugs on the issue is not helpful IMHO. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017151108.gb12...@smurf.noris.de
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
Hi Solveig, I think if you do something, do it right. Lots of feminists, who work on these questions since years, collectively, and are concerned by the problem, have documented not only *why* have a CoC, but also *how* - not following their advice is silly and wrong. IMHO you are conflagrating two distinct reasons why people want, or need, a CoC. One is for armchair lawyers. If Mr.Insensitive is at a conference and has bought a ticket, you need a list of Bad Things he has agreed not to do as a condition for attendance; if you don't, you basically have no cause if you need to ban him, as long as he is not disruptifve to the assembly at large. Be nice will not work for these guys, as they're bound to think that all they've been doing is to nicely compliment a woman about her boobs - and what can possibly wrong with that? :-/ The other is for online communities where participation is a privilege, not a right. If the Debian mailing list admin kicks Mr.I off the list for being a dick, he can fork Debian -- and that's it. The CoC's goal is to tell people not that they're bad, but to get them to consider for themselves how they can be better -- so that any harrassment or crude jokes or what- ever don't even enter the picture. Ideally. So, what's their advice, and what's missing? Umm, no. Ubuntu's CoC worked very well when it was written (specifically because of the absymal mode of discussion on our mailing lists at the time) and it did not enumerate bad behavior either. There should be a way to report abusive or inadequate behaviour without starting a quest to find somebody interested, maybe have cond...@debian.org where people can redirect you to the right place AND keep trace, so that inadequate behaviour cannot continue on a different forum. Or maybe see if https://wiki.debian.org/AntiHarassment can be extended? That's a good suggestion. In general, this Code of Conduct seems to be more afraid to bruise offender's ego than to assure contributor's well-being. I don't read it that way, frankly. This CoC doesn't talk to the offenders. They won't listen anyway. This CoC asks the rest of us to be more mindful so that we don't become, or support (if only by inaction), offenders. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Code of Conduct needs specifics
Hi, Raphael Hertzog: Please do. I tend to agree with what Steve said. It doesn't hurt to have a list of don't but this should not replace the inspirational part of the CoC. It should also state that the list of don'ts is not exhaustive, and anybody who argues that their behavior should be allowed because it's not on the list should get double penalty, just for playing armchair lawyer. :-P -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140324090439.gb24...@smurf.noris.de
Re: two questions: fund raising money and publicity
Hi, Lucas Nussbaum: Sure, but there would be quite a lot of work to do to grow it to something such as https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors, to which I pointed to previously. Why not ask the FreeBSD folks whether they'd be willing to share their code? (Yes, I do know that a working donation system requires more than a web site.) -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140322205631.gf3...@smurf.noris.de
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Thijs Kinkhorst: I do not see the code of conduct to be very different from the diversity statement with respect to the requirements for changing it. The decision on that statement did not contain any clauses authorising the DPL to make updates to it. A CoC which doesn't prescribe every single letter one might type invariably contains loopholes, which we might have to plug in a reasonably timely manner. I therefore suggest the following amendment: The DPL may offer changes to this document by mailing to debian-announce. Changes are deemed to be approved after four weeks if they are not retracted and no GR is called on them or a related modification. Thus, uncontroversial changes get applied in a timely manner and without buerocratic overhead, while anything else will get the full GR treatment. Seconds? -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Hi, Russ Allbery: In other words, I'm advocating the same position that we have right now for translations: the package maintainer is not expected to translate their package to other languages, but they are expected to incorporate translations as they are made available. The translators bear the burden of the work for doing the translation, and if no one steps up to translate a particular package to some language, it won't be available in that language. Seconded. (The rest also.) This GR would herald a major change in hwo we as a project [are supposed to] cooperate, and IMHO *not* for the better. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm
Hi, Thue Janus Kristensen: I don't know enough about Michael Ossipoff's suggested complete change of voting system to have an opinion about that. It's not a complete change. The basic Condorcet method is unchanged. We merely change (fix?) what we do when there's no single winner. I have to admit that I think that the rationale behind the Beatpath method which we use to clean up a nontrivial Schwartz set is somewhat obscure. If using IRV instead fixes a problem that shows up in real-world elections with few voters, particularly when the vote is not secret, then I'm in favor of replacing it. But I think that if Debian stays with the current Condorcet method, then my (and Michael Ossipoff's I guess) suggestion of moving §A.6.3 down as the last step is a simple and obvious must-have fix. Agreed. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm
Hi, Markus Schulze: the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come from the order of its checks. That may be so, but our method of removing choices that fail to win over FD clearly causes the normal Condorcet tallying to fail later-no-harm in situations where it ordinarily would not. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/05/msg00012.html offers a possible solution which IMHO should be investigated more closely. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
Hi, Wouter Verhelst: The position statement really only is the we accept a code of conduct part. Everything else isn't. Maybe that means I should not put the text of the code of conduct inline with the rest of the GR? If so, I'll happily do so. I would propose an initial CoC as integral part of the GR, but allow the DPL to amend the Code as warranted (while keeping to its spirit). If somebody doesn't like whatever the DPL does to the text, they can propose a new GR. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Call for votes for GR: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:53:35 +, Debian Project Secretary wrote: [ ] Choice 1: Re-affirm DPL, wish success to unofficial Dunc Tank [ ] Choice 2: Re-affirm DPL, do not endorse nor support his other projects and [ ] Choice 1: Recall the project leader Okay... now what the hell should happen if these ballots both succeed? IMHO those two should have been on one ballot. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for GR: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
Hi,
Thomas Bushnell BSG:
Okay... now what the hell should happen if these ballots both succeed?
We would know that Debian developers are insane. The ballots cannot
both succeed unless sufficient people vote to Re-affirm the DPL *and*
vote to recall him.
That assertion holds only if everybody who votes does so on both
ballots. Our quorum is less than 50 people -- thus, we could hold
20 valid elections with entirely disjoint sets of participants,
neither of whom would be insane by that metric.
Doing those 20 elections would of course be somewhat insane, but the
conceptual difference between 1 and 2 is larger than between 2 and 20.
IMHO.
Yes I know: it's still rather unlikely fo the votes to get that result,
but that's not my point.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: my thoughts on the Vancouver Prospectus
Hi, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
This is obviously unacceptable. Why would a small number of people be
allowed to veto inclusion of other people's work ?
Why not? (Assuming they do have a valid reason. For instance, I probably
wouldn't allow an MMIX port into the archive even if it sat up and begged.)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Denied vote and the definition of a DD
Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
FWIW, when you go to another Schengen country you still have to _bring_
your passport; you just don't have to show it at the border. At least
that's what they tell us in Denmark.
I haven't heard of any instance where the ID card / Personalausweis
wasn't sufficient.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about Anthony Towns rebutting Branden Robinson
Hi, Ean Schuessler wrote:
I also like how Branden's response boils down to I'm the most qualified to
fix this problem in the future because I've caused the most problems in the
past.*
That may be because he's made the mistakes and learned from them.
If he [can convince us he] won't repeat them, so much the better.
* Cruel, tactless, unfair, factual. :-D
Possibly.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for Matthew Garrett
Hi, Martin Schulze wrote:
Synchronising security updates for several *distributions* (i.e. different
source versions) is a pain. Sychronising for all architectures is quite
easy as long as our great buildd network is in good shape.
There's one area where the two are easily conflated -- kernel sources.
Historically, every architecture has its own kernel source etc.
Hopefully, that will change -- the new kernel process is quite
amenable to integrating arch-specific changes, if they're sane.
This was different during 2.4's lifetime.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: other candidates opinion about project scud
Hi, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The DPL's team should be made up of everyone involved in the project,
not a subset of it.
Your definition of team probably differs from the one the Scud people
use.
To pick a not-so-random example: To solve the too-long NEW queue
problem, you'd have a meeting with 10 people if you want to actually
accomplish something. If you round up 300+ active DDs and put them in one
room, mailing list or IRC channel instead, reaching that goal becomes
somewhat unlikely.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to all DPL candidates
Hi, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Replacement fonts are a standard feature, and using is usually breaks
formatting of the document.
This may be a nitpick, but documents which *break*, instead of just
looking somewhat sub-optimal, are mostly designed (I'm using that word
loosely) by people who still think that a word processing program works
like a typewriter.
The same thing happens if people want to print the nicely letter-formatted
text some US colleague mailed them on *gasp* A4 *shock* paper, and no font
equivalency will help you with that one.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions to all DPL candidates
Hi,
Angus Lees:
Erm, no. Many metric compatible fonts aren't exactly that way.
See http://www.pragma-ade.com/general/technotes/tfmetrics.pdf for an
interesting comparison of Palatino.
With well-written documents, the worst problem probably is that you get
a font that's a bit wider and overruns a tabstop -- that looks bad, but
hardly constitutes breakage. In fact I consider that to be a design
error in the word processing program: it should indent the next column a
bit, instead of shifting everything to the next tabstop.
What I had in mind is people who insert a line break by hitting Space
until they get to the next line (instead of Shift-Return), or who
design forms by entering exactly 34 periods so that stuff lines up
correctly, or a heap of other stuff amply described in ancient books
such as The Mac is not a Typewriter (I think that was the first one).
I admit that this is a much larger problem with PDFs and similar
non-source formats. :-/
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: other candidates opinion about project scud
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
OTOH, solving the too-long NEW queue problem, or most problems within
the project, requires having the *right* 10 people in the room.
Heh. I kindof pre-assumed that. ;-)
The idea is not to make the DPL team the 10 people in the room; the idea
is to put together a DPL team that includes people who are often in the
room *anyway*, and commit to the goal of coordinating amongst ourselves to
stay better aware of current issues.
Thanks for the clarification.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: other candidates opinion about project scud
Hi, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If there's a problem that needs solving, then the right people to discuss
it with are the people that can do something about it. In the NEW queue
case, that would be the ftp-masters.
Actually, I disagree (in the general case -- I don't want to dwell on my
example too much). Often, the people directly involved don't see the big
picture, otherwise they'd already have solved the problem. :-/
Having a pre-chosen DPL team doesn't reduce the number of people that
you have to talk to.
I didn't say that, did I?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for A. Towns - NM
Hi, Ean Schuessler wrote:
So then you are back to some kind of yardstick determining the freedoms of
everyone. Who will set the mark?
Read the Ubuntu Code of Conduct, for example.
There will always be a gray area, but that's not a valid argument for
denying that black exists at all.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for A. Towns - NM
Hi, MJ Ray wrote:
Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get another ticket for the Meme Lottery if you tell us what we
I think this above is inappropriate content.
*Sigh* You're probably right about that. Sorry.
(and/or the new DPL) should do instead, given that (a) inappropriate
content is a problem on many Debian lists, and (b) previous attempts
to tone said content down have failed.
Why did they fail? I didn't see that referenced in the campaign in a way
that made me think the gagging options presented were needed.
A code of conduct is worthless if nobody has the power to actually enforce
it. AJ may focus too much on hard methods of enforcing and not enough on
soft ones, but if the latter don't seem to work, what else is there?
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for A. Towns - NM
Hi, Ean Schuessler wrote:
The Censorship Boo-Man, as you deftly downplayed it, is the central
motivation for this project. Freedom of communication, freedom to process
your own data and freedom to modify the infrastructure for doing so are
the reason we are here.
Well, for me there's a difference between the freedom to share your ideas
with others and the freedom to communicate anything whatsoever, even if
it's detrimental to the communication. So, sorry, but your we isn't
exactly the same as my we.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Hi, Sven Luther wrote: Even if the ftp-master promise to handle it within a week in the NEW queue template response (well, they maybe removed this now). No, it's still there. NEW processing is also reasonably fast these times, AFAIK. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Second Call for votes: General resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
Hi, Ron wrote: Frankly, I'm not really sure what basis to legitimacy either of these gr's can really have. The Social Contract is something each of us entered into or affirmed individually on our own shared understanding of it with whoever vouched us into the keyring. But I also understand that it is a contract between _me_ and the users of Debian. (A) That's why there's a 3:1 supermajority requirement. (B) If you don't like the change, you're free to terminate your involvement with Debian. (C) You couldn't be bothered to bring this up _before_ the vote actually started, could you? -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussions in Debian
Hi, Russell Coker wrote: there are many arguments which are stupidly bogus. Perhaps. Unfortunately, people's opinion on exactly which arguments are stupidly bogus, and which are merely not as well-thought-through as you'd like, differ. Also, while you might be factually correct (assuming that a designation of stupidly bogus can be that in the first place), people differ on where they draw the line between civilly arguing against something, calling the argument names, or calling the arguer names. My point? Don't Do That, Then. (Well, except for the civil arguing part of course. ;-) This has been demonstrated many times on this list. Exactly. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal to modify DFSG
Hi, Paul M Foster wrote: But specifically on the issues of documentation and licenses, it's patently obvious that this isn't software and shouldn't be treated as such. You can't go around randomly modifying RFCs and the GPL. That's the whole point of them. *Sigh* Under the GFDL, there's a whole lot of other things you can't do which make the whole mess anything *but* patently obvious. Please go on to debian.legal, or Manoj's GFDL page, if you want to learn more. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing list behaviour was: Candidate questions/musings
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote: I prefer my fellow Debian brothers to develop rhinocerous hides. :-) Disregarding your smiley for a moment (I'm not sure what you want say with it anyway): I disagree. Rhino hides tend to come with Rhino horns, which people then get in the habit of using as an all-purpose tool, appropriately or not. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailing list behaviour was: Candidate questions/musings
Hi, Jonathan Walther wrote: I prefer my fellow Debian brothers to develop rhinocerous hides. :-) Disregarding your smiley for a moment (I'm not sure what you want say with it anyway): I disagree. Rhino hides tend to come with Rhino horns, which people then get in the habit of using as an all-purpose tool, appropriately or not. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: The key issue here is that different people have different takes at different times on actually fullfilling that responsibility. True. But that's not the same as stating theat there is no responsibility there in the first place. I don't have hard-and-fast answers either, but the everybody who vanished can just get their key re-added, no problem is equally wrong (IMHO, anyway), in general, than everybody who comes back needs to go through NM again, no matter why they left. I'm quite happy to leave all the gray area cases in between these extremes to the DAM's (or whoever's) discretion, though. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart when the condition that caused my resignation no longer applies. I see. I volunteer for a bake sale, and my wife breaks her leg and I do not show up, the church excommunicates me? A broken leg is an emergency. A bake sale isn't. I was referring to an emergency call _from the fire service_, not from external circumstances. (I'll leave the question whether I really was _that_ inscrutable, or if Manoj deliberately and/or accidentally misunderstood, up to the readers' consideration.) -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart when the condition that caused my resignation no longer applies. I see. I volunteer for a bake sale, and my wife breaks her leg and I do not show up, the church excommunicates me? A broken leg is an emergency. A bake sale isn't. I was referring to an emergency call _from the fire service_, not from external circumstances. (I'll leave the question whether I really was _that_ inscrutable, or if Manoj deliberately and/or accidentally misunderstood, up to the readers' consideration.) -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown? Have you left the project? No? Then why are you asking that question? -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Compare with real-world duties. For example, nothing in our community's bylaws states that I _have_ to become a volunteer rescue worker. _If_ I do, however, simply not showing up in an emergency or two (as opposed to resigning properly) will have a _very_ different result WRT both to my standing in the community and my ability to restart when the condition that caused my resignation no longer applies. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result. Are you assuming that all men will do this? Note the word may. The men who do might well be operating from a negative stereotype of women. But it sounds to me as if you are countering with your own negative stereotype of men. You know, that mail clearly shows that you're part of the problem here. The fear she talks about is _hardly_ uncommon. It's the reason why there are women-only computer courses, for example. I would certainly argue that the fear is mostly unfounded, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's a cultural thing -- have you ever spent any time in a typical high school science class? *Ugh*. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational arguments. If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim), then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence. Umm, that logic works here because the meta-argument and the meta-meta-argument are actually about the same topic (rational arguments). In real-world examples, it is quite easy to sustain the Gerbil Hypothesis: you simply assert that the conclusion the supposed gerbil arrives at is invalid. We've had quite a few examples of this kind of argument on -devel recently. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. So? That's what I said. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. YMMV, and all that. My position is, though, that this is the way it works in many real-world communities also, and quite frankly I fail to see why it shouldn't work that way in Debian. I'll save the question whether my original mesage was _that_ difficult to understand for some other time if you don't mind. -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. That's not what I said. I didn't say James wouldn't notice. I was talking about the public discussion ^w flame-fest on -devel. Since that didn't contain any message from James (the stuff Ingo quoted doesn't count) he simply wasn't visible. (There might have been the wrong word; sorry if that was misunderstandable.) -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: So, for example, I should be put through n-m again immediately because I haven't been doing regular maintenance of cruft or ifupdown? Have you left the project? No? Then why are you asking that question? -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Partly it's knowing that I'm going to be dealing with a man (almost certainly), and he may assume I don't know what I'm doing, and he may put me down or be condescending or unkind as a result. Are you assuming that all men will do this? Note the word may. The men who do might well be operating from a negative stereotype of women. But it sounds to me as if you are countering with your own negative stereotype of men. You know, that mail clearly shows that you're part of the problem here. The fear she talks about is _hardly_ uncommon. It's the reason why there are women-only computer courses, for example. I would certainly argue that the fear is mostly unfounded, but that doesn't make it any less real. It's a cultural thing -- have you ever spent any time in a typical high school science class? *Ugh*. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:39:50PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: I can demonstrate evidence that I'm not a gerbil quite handily. On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 08:08:49AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: No you can't, because you're a gerbil and gerbils can't form rational arguments. If it's true that gerbils can't form rational arguments (not much doubt that they can't express rational arguments, but that's not your claim), then the mere ability to form rational arguments (or, even better express those arguments) qualifies as demonstrating evidence. Umm, that logic works here because the meta-argument and the meta-meta-argument are actually about the same topic (rational arguments). In real-world examples, it is quite easy to sustain the Gerbil Hypothesis: you simply assert that the conclusion the supposed gerbil arrives at is invalid. We've had quite a few examples of this kind of argument on -devel recently. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: tb's questions for the candidates
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:32:45 +, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: They should be treated like people who don't follow their duties, We have duties now? Can you point to me where it says that? I looked all over the constitution, and failed. The Constitution doesn't say that you _have_ to take on the maintenance of packages X, Y and Z, but _if_ you do, you take on the duty of doing so properly, in the manner specified by Policy et al. Eh? No, it doesn't. It says quite the opposite: 1. Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it. So? That's what I said. However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions properly made under them. If you actively take on some responsibility and then fail to actually fulfill that responsibility it and/or fail to tell others that somebody else needs to do the job, that _is_ to actively work against these rules and decisions in my book. YMMV, and all that. My position is, though, that this is the way it works in many real-world communities also, and quite frankly I fail to see why it shouldn't work that way in Debian. I'll save the question whether my original mesage was _that_ difficult to understand for some other time if you don't mind. -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
Hi, Michael Banck wrote: On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 09:51:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Raul Miller wrote: Not really equally, however -- more visible people tend to get more abuse than less visible people. [Consider James Troup as a rather recent example of this.] Not really. IMHO the abuse was exchanged mostly between participants of the discussion about James, and comparatively few was directed *at* him, mostly because he wasn't there... I find it funny to think that James wouldn't have noticed the personal attacks or stay indifferent to them. Just because he does not respond to personal attacks does not mean he would be immune to them. That's not what I said. I didn't say James wouldn't notice. I was talking about the public discussion ^w flame-fest on -devel. Since that didn't contain any message from James (the stuff Ingo quoted doesn't count) he simply wasn't visible. (There might have been the wrong word; sorry if that was misunderstandable.) -- Matthias Urlichs
Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
D: further discussion
Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get
thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I
decide to give the converse a vote. I vote CDAB. That isn't sincere,
but it's smart.
The solution to this particular problem is to have separate ballots.
A and B are independent, after all.
In general, though, I have to admit that I don't understand what the problem
is. A.6.3 ranks your choice against the defaukt option, not against anything
else. Thus, voting CDAB instead of CABD doesn't affect the chances of C
winning, it only changes the chances of A or B winning if C isn't accepted by
the (super)majority.
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
Does a good farmer neglect a crop he has planted?
Does a good teacher overlook even the most humble student?
Does a good father allow a single child to starve?
Does a good programmer refuse to maintain his code?
-- Geoffrey James, The Tao of Programming
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think you need a better grammar book.
I shall ... They will.
I will ... They shall.
Don't use a confusing rule when a simpler one will suffice.
The simple rule is that you (used to) use will when the subject of the
sentence is identical to the person who has the intent, and shall
otherwise.
Disclaimer: If this is utterly wrong, my brain shall lay the blame upon
my memory. ;-)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
There are very few original thinkers in the world; the greatest part of
those who are called philosophers have adopted the opinions of some who went
before them.
-- Dugald Stewert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Seconded.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify, supercede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents
and + statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
+ Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Seconded.
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify, supercede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents
and + statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A Foundation Document is a document or statement regarded as
+ critical to the Project's mission and purposes.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
+ Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.3 A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 supermajority for its
+ supercession. New Foundation Documents are issued and
+ existing ones withdrawn by amending the list of Foundation
+ Documents in this constitution.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
pgpHcKNzgwVqL.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR1] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
:upthread: adv. Earlier in the discussion (see {thread}), i.e., `above'.
As Joe pointed out upthread, ... See also {followup}.
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR1] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
Probably, but we can't proceed until BR3 either has enough seconds, or it's
reasonably clear that it won't get them.
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
:upthread: adv. Earlier in the discussion (see {thread}), i.e., `above'.
As Joe pointed out upthread, ... See also {followup}.
pgpSjBdLGJomG.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR3] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Branden Robinson wrote:
- 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
- Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled Debian
+ Social Contract.
I disagree. Rationale: The DFSG doesn't codify a majority opinion -- it
codifies a (rough) consensus. Therefore changing ... oops,
superseding ;-) ... it should also require some approximation of consensus. A
3:1 supermajority is IMHO an example of this approximation; a simple 1:1
majority isn't.
Unrelated nit: I don't like the analogy of DFSG to statutory law. Statutory
laws are frequently passed in a way almost, but not quite, entirely unlike
something that makes sense WRT solving the actual problem. :-/
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth.
-- James III, 5
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: [AMENDMENT BR3] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Branden Robinson wrote:
- 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled Debian
- Social Contract and Debian Free Software Guidelines.
+ 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled Debian
+ Social Contract.
I disagree. Rationale: The DFSG doesn't codify a majority opinion -- it
codifies a (rough) consensus. Therefore changing ... oops,
superseding ;-) ... it should also require some approximation of consensus. A
3:1 supermajority is IMHO an example of this approximation; a simple 1:1
majority isn't.
Unrelated nit: I don't like the analogy of DFSG to statutory law. Statutory
laws are frequently passed in a way almost, but not quite, entirely unlike
something that makes sense WRT solving the actual problem. :-/
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth.
-- James III, 5
pgpQ9aAEIbCTc.pgp
Description: signature
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I am appending the proposal, and the amendment, to this mail
message.
I second the proposal and the amendment.
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the
project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and
nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that
Debian + software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as
+ Foundation Documents. These documents are those
+ that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project,
+ they tend to define what the project is, and lay the
+ foundations of its structure. The developers may
+ modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1
+ majority.
+ 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed
+ by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
==
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
==
##
##
##
+ 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed
+ by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
+ 5.2 The list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed
+ by the developers only by changing this clause, which needs
+ according to 5.1 a 3:1 majority.
Advantage: This makes the list in 5.2 the authoritative list, which
makes it easier later to see which documents are in fact foundation
Documents. (Or to speak in computer slang: normalization of data.)
--
Economists are still trying to figure out why the girls with the least
principle draw the most interest.
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07
E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493
410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.debian.net
- -
What does an Englishman's stepladder say at the top? STOP HERE.
pgpaHQoeLdcK0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Seconded [in case you still need more].
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the
project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and
nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that
Debian + software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as
+ Foundation Documents. These documents are those
+ that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project,
+ they tend to define what the project is, and lay the
+ foundations of its structure. The developers may
+ modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1
+ majority.
+ 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed
+ by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
==
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
==
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
He who reigns within himself, and rules passions, desires and fears, is more
than a king.
-- Milton
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Seconded [in case you still need more].
==
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
-5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- software must meet.
- They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
statements. + These include documents describing the goals of the
project, its + relationship with other free software entities, and
nontechnical + policies such as the free software licence terms that
Debian + software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as
+ Foundation Documents. These documents are those
+ that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project,
+ they tend to define what the project is, and lay the
+ foundations of its structure. The developers may
+ modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1
+ majority.
+ 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be Foundation Documents may be changed
+ by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
==
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying the
language in the constitution about _changing_ non technical
documents. Additionally, this also provides for the core documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
==
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
He who reigns within himself, and rules passions, desires and fears, is more
than a king.
-- Milton
pgpoOmIimjtBy.pgp
Description: signature
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Richard Braakman wrote:
I propose to use a word that won't be misspelled all over the place :)
I propose not to do that. Debian isn't about dumbing things down.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that
would be clearly understood.
-- Alexander Haig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution
Hi,
Richard Braakman wrote:
I propose to use a word that won't be misspelled all over the place :)
I propose not to do that. Debian isn't about dumbing things down.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that
would be clearly understood.
-- Alexander Haig
Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I heard that new Australian citizens
are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
jury duty and voting.
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are interested in the outcome of a
vote (and therefore might be assumed to make an informed decision), than 1000
who only vote because it's compulsory (and therefore vote without enaging
their higher brain functions).
The Australian vote is secret, so if somebody truly doesn't want to vote they
can easily submit an empty ballot. For Debian, the equivalent would be a
ballot with every option ranked equally. Thus a compulsory vote is
ineffective WRT determined non-voters and only serves to dilute the result.
:-/
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Physiker:
Das Atü wurde ja auch abgeschafft, jetzt soll man nur noch das Bar
verwenden. Seither macht die Feuerwehr Tbartata Tbartata.
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
Approvals.
I think that word works well; we already have established that ranking an
option WRT the default option is equivalent to checking (or not) that option
on an approval ballot.
There's not much difference between adding a sentence which states that the
word quorum, as used in the proposal / the constitution, is not used with
its commonly-accepted meaning, and defining our usage of the word
approvals.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD votetallying
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but are
lying to give B an edge?
By providing them with a voting system which allows them to express their
preferences adequately so that they don't _have_ to lie, if they want their
true preferences to be considered fairly. Most other voting systems simply
can't do that.
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with Manoj's
s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that task.
Why, is that a trick question? ;-)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Help save the world! -- Larry Wall in README
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
1. Approval voting has obvious incentives to strategic voting. The
electionmethods people consider it clearly inferior to Condorcet
voting, in part for this reason. Specifically, why don't you
think this is a problem with the proposed method?
With Approval, there's no difference between strategic voting and expressing
your preference. On an Approval ballot you can only say I like this option
or I don't like it. You can't express I like A more than B but I can live
with either of them.
Our method doesn't have that problem.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Man bist Du heute stark. Hast wohl wieder in der Kaba-Dose übernachtet.
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Markus Schulze wrote:
In short: The winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal
can be cyclic even when the voters don't change their minds.
Wrong. Reason: The default option is never keep the current status, it's
further discussion. If we run a vote which results in action A, the vote
gets repeated for some reason, and nobody changes their mind, then the result
is again going to be A because the quorum requirements didn't change.
You can't get a cycle with three non-default options; I just checked. You're
welcome to try to build one with more options than that. Conditions: None of
the options in question are the default option, any of them may be below
quota, quota is ignored for the option which is current, i.e. has been
elected in the previous step.
My gut feeling is that, even if you can do it, such a situation is very
unlikely to occur in a real election.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
The early bird catches the worm as a rule, but the guy who comes along later
may be having lobster Newburg and crepes suzette.
-- Charles Merrill Smith
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no problem with
the proposed system, why not add to the current proposal the fact that the
votes cast, altogether, have to be at least 2*quorum? This will also ensure
that, before taking a vote into consideration, there is enough general
intrest about the issue...
The problems start when there is not enough general interest but something
should be done regardless.
For example, let's say we have a technical problem which affects many
packages, and the alternatives are
C- do nothing
D- further discussion (i.e. the default option)
B- implement a workaround
A- fix the problem correctly, which affects a lot of programs, is a policy
change, whatever
then the last option should have a quota attached. So there may well be a
nicely unambiguous A-B-D-C vote, but if not enough people care, solution A
isn't going to be implemented anyways, so B clearly is the right thing to do.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
You've got to have a gimmick if your band sucks.
-- Gary Giddens
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi, Anthony Towns wrote: [ Analysis snipped ] If only nine developers find A acceptable, well, it deserves to lose. Thank you. I wrote two days ago that Nick Phillips wrote: If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then I think the vote should probably be considered void. That seems to be the best choice. FWIW, I no longer think so, and would (if I'm actually accepted as DD before the vote starts, which seems somewhat unlikely) vote against this change. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de -- Microsoft gibt Dir Windows, UNIX gibt Dir ein ganzes Haus. pgpCyYSydau3A.pgp Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Jochen Voss wrote:
My example: The winner among the interesting options changes
because an uninteresting option fails quorum.
That is a property of any Condorcet conflict resolution system. You can't
avoid it unless you throw the entire vote out and start over.
The fact that few people bothered to vote for it shouldn't have the power to
do that.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
In charity there is no excess.
-- Francis Bacon
pgp0T1szl9XUL.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Raul Miller wrote:
You are arguing, I imagine, that [strictly speaking], casting a vote
which prefers option A over all other options when compared to not
casting a ballot at all is not an example of voting the candidate
higher?
IMHO, that is exactly what it is an example of
Simple reasoning: ranking all the options the same has the same effect as
not voting at all WRT the outcome of the vote. Absent reasons to the
contrary, it therefore should also be considered equivalent WRT the
Monotonicity Criterion, or violation thereof, or lack thereof.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Gegen Liebe auf den ersten Blick hilft nur der zweite...
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Sven Luther wrote:
But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have insider
knowledge
A situation where a vote would be successful, but fail for lack of
participation, often requires no insider knowledge at all to be recognizeable
as such. In that situation, the opponents can make a vote fail simply by not
voting.
Not good.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Bite off, dirtball.
Richard Sexton, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpZ9LB5FMKOP.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Sven Luther wrote:
If there is such a lack of participation that even our low quorum
requirement is not meet, then is this a bad thing ?
Yes -- because it encourages people not to vote in that situation.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
The only easy way to tell a hamster from a gerbil is
that the gerbil has more dark meat.
pgppk9cNnJIlI.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
Nick Phillips wrote:
If a winning option would be discarded due to quorum requirements, then
I think the vote should probably be considered void.
That seems to be the best choice.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
The best way to get and keep good people is to give them room to grow.
pgpQAFZRfz8ej.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do that, it smells
of politics. :-/
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
- 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other
-than the default option which do not receive at least R votes
-ranking that option above the default option are dropped from
-consideration.
+ 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R, and less then R votes are
+cast, the entire vote is thrown out. The amendment may be withdrawn,
+or a discussion period may be resumed at the sponsor's discretion.
I think I like this change.
+ 3. Any option with a supermajority requirement which does not defeat
+the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from
+consideration.
- 3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
-by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
The point of wording it the old way was that any option which is ranked
below the default by a majority is removed before starting the algorithm.
That is intentional; otherwise, a case can be constructed where such an
option could win, which is Not Good.
I'd reject this change.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Losing your faith is a lot like losing your virginity
you don't realise how irritating it was 'til it's gone.
pgptyuirAU3qw.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Matthias Urlichs:
The point of wording it the old way was that any option which is ranked
below the default by a majority is removed before starting the algorithm.
I was talking about (super)majority requirements (WRT the default option)
here.
Not correct. The original proposal simply threw out the voter's intent
iff the option did not have R+1 people ranking it higher than default.
this is where the concept of quorum is being mis-applied. this is what
is being fixed.
You're talking about quorum here.
As I said, I'm in favor of your idea of throwing the whole vote if quorum
isn't met -- we thus avoid the possibility of electing the wrong option by
insincere voting.
a much easier and likely case can be constructed where an otherwise
winning option is dropped before consideration, which is Even Worse.
IMNSHO, if the Condorcet/SSD winner option does not have a majority WRT the
default option, then it shouldn't win. The default option has a built-in
priority here, which I consider to be a Good Thing. Otherwise we'd have a
controversial result which will not actually settle the issue which the vote
was about.
Anyway, I still think that your two changes do NOT depend on each other.
NB: The mailing list to discuss this is named debian-vote. Debian-devel is
busy enough already. IMHO.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin.
[Robert Ingersoll, Heretics
and Heresies, 1874]
pgpHzchQC0Lzs.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Ending votes early
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The major problem, as I see it, is that we have not yet
conducted enough votes, and on enough different _kinds_ of options,
to convincingly determine what fraction of voters typically change
their minds, and to build a safe buffer in determining when a vote is
not in doubt.
Plus, change their mind includes ... about not voting at all. In other
words, the vote needs to be nearly unanimous for there to be a safe buffer.
There is another problem here, which is far worse IMHO. For somebody to
declare that an early end is possible, that person needs to have inside
knowledge about the votes cast so far. In order not to influence the
election, that knowledge can't be shared before the vote is over. This means
that there cannot be any public or even semi-public discourse about whether
or not it is safe to end the vote, and _that_ is a Bad Thing.
To summarize: We declare that the vote period is N days. We should stick to
it, unless we have a very good reason not to (which needs to outweigh the
problems with cutting a vote short). I haven't seen one yet.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: Das Zitat wurde zufällig ausgewählt. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Letzte Worte von A. Senna:
Irgendetwas klappert da.
pgp9te6rIxkpQ.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Condorcet cuckoos: promoting the method by having it get the winners wrong
Hi,
Jochen Voss wrote:
[ Cc to debian-vote, bacause it may be of general interest. ]
It would be if he had actually answered the question.
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} Consulting|http://smurf.noris.de/
--
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed
because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.
-- D. Dale Gulledge
pgpJNh41zqT1D.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Robonson wins [...]
Hi, Craig Carey wrote: The ballot paper 4 is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that. *ROTFL* The method can be used to elect the leader of the Debian project, but due to DCMA encryption issues it a widely trusted black box. Oh wow. My net.kook meter just went off the scale. Few people manage to do that. Oh yes, welcome to my killfile. You should find the company in there quite acceptable. -- Matthias Urlichs|noris network AG|http://smurf.noris.de/ -- BOFH excuse #411: Traffic jam on the Information Superhighway. pgpnI1tc1ghEF.pgp Description: signature
