Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload
Sean Whitton wrote on 13/06/2024 at 14:44:57+0200: > Hello, > > On Thu 13 Jun 2024 at 01:05pm +02, Ansgar wrote: > >> The statement also reads like the implementation was reviewed by Russ >> which as far as I understand isn't the case either? Or do you only plan >> to deploy a version once such a review happened? > > We weren't planning for this to be done, no. I'm sorry but I have a problem here. You stated in your first mail that both rra and noodles audited your work, and here it seems that audited is potentially a bit more than what has been done. Could you elaborate explicitly on what you mean with "audited"? Bests, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy tag2upload
Hi, Luca Boccassi wrote on 12/06/2024 at 13:15:47+0200: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 12:03, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >> Quoting Luca Boccassi (2024-06-12 12:28:21) >> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 09:35, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> > > >> > > Quoting Luca Boccassi (2024-06-12 10:21:40) >> > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 02:31, Russ Allbery wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Luca Boccassi writes: >> > > > > >> > > > > > And on the implementation details, I really do not like the idea of >> > > > > > having a competing git forge with Salsa. This dgit server seems to >> > > > > > just >> > > > > > be a ye olde git-web interface. >> > > > > >> > > > > Does it support gitweb? I thought it only supported regular Git >> > > > > operations, but I could be mistaken. >> > > > >> > > > I might be wrong, but this is what this looks like to me (it was >> > > > linked to me on IRC yesterday, wasn't aware of it before): >> > > > >> > > > https://browse.dgit.debian.org/ >> > > > >> > > > > > If this goes forward, in my opinion it should exclusively use Salsa >> > > > > > as the git server, to avoid duplicating infrastructure. >> > > > > >> > > > > I think you want the Git archive to be entirely separate from Salsa >> > > > > so that it's a reliable source of tracing information. You don't >> > > > > want to support force pushes, for example; the whole point is that it >> > > > > should be append-only, which would be a controversial choice for >> > > > > Salsa but which is fine for the archives of the uploaded packages. I >> > > > > would also want a much smaller attack surface for that type of record >> > > > > than than GitLab. GitLab is designed as a place to do interactive >> > > > > work, not to keep a reliable permanent record. >> > > > >> > > > The git repositories, sure. The git forge? I don't see why. You can >> > > > have these repositories in a separate namespace, which sets strong >> > > > branch and tag protection rules to achieve what you describe. As far >> > > > as I am aware, this is possible to do in Salsa already, it doesn't >> > > > have to be a per-forge rule, it can be per-namespace, I think this is >> > > > possible to achieve in Gitlab. I have not used tag protection rules >> > > > (on gitlab, I used them on github though), but I do regularly use >> > > > branch protection rules on my Salsa repositories. >> > > > >> > > > To be clear, I am exclusively talking about the git forge, as in >> > > > salsa.debian.org, not the git repositories as they might exist on >> > > > Salsa under the debian/ namespace or any other namespace. >> > > > >> > > > Having a separate namespace with strong ACLs seems exactly what you >> > > > want, even if it duplicates the individual repositories (the backend >> > > > git store deduplicates it anyway, so in practice it should be quite >> > > > cheap). Having an entire separate git forge that competes with Salsa >> > > > seems orthogonal to this, and counterproductive for the project. >> > > >> > > I fail to recognize how strong ACLs achieves exactly the same separate >> > > storage on a separate host. Especially when the purpose is to minimize >> > > attack vectors. >> > >> > As per the security review just shared, admin access to Salsa allows >> > to push commits anyway which would get uploaded just the same, and >> > again as per security review, this case benefits from centralizing: >> > one host to maintain, and one set of admins to trust, is better than >> > two. Especially as Salsa is Gitlab, which is maintained upstream and >> > benefits from the many-eyes-and-many-users situation, while a >> > completely custom local git forge reimplementation, other than >> > inevitably suffering from bitrot at some point in the future, like all >> > custom infrastructure, will have the disadvantage that nobody else >> > uses it. This is the reason Alioth is gone, and it's a very good >> > reason. >> >> So your argument is that that strong ACLs achieve exactly the same as >> separate storage on a separate host, because separate storage on a >> separate host inevitably leads to bitrot and lack of eyeballs. >> >> I rest my case. > > No, my argument is that append-only can (as far as I can tell) be > achieved on Salsa too, it doesn't seem to necessitate a bespoke forge. > The centralizing argument is not mine, it's from the security review > that was published this morning: > > "My security recommendation in this case is therefore to centralize > the risk as much as possible, moving it off of individual uploader > systems with unknown security profiles and onto a central system that > can be analyzed and iteratively improved." > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2024/06/msg4.html > >> > > > > That Git archive is not parallel to or competitive with Salsa and >> > > > > doesn't >> > > > > provide most of the functionality that Salsa does. It has a >> > > > > different >> > > > > purpose. >> > > > >> > > > I disagree strongly. As we have seen in the recent Salsa thread on >> >
Re: Question to candidates: do you support using data to guide gender diversity efforts?
Mechtilde Stehmann wrote on 01/04/2024 at 20:36:02+0200: > Hello Roberto, > >> Question to the candidates: do you support using data to help guide >> decisions regarding gender diversity in Debian and would you support >> improving the way in which the Debian project collects information on >> the gender identity of contributors as an aid to those of us desiring to >> advance the project's efforts in the area of gender diversity? > > No, I can't support such ideas. Each person can decide themselves > which information they give also about the gender identity. There is > no need to collect them at one point. > > For those people who don't know who am I. To me you're one of the people helping at Debian's booth when you're around at FOSDEM. And thanks for that <3 -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all candidates: what to do with the Debian money, shall we invest in hardware and cloud?
Hi, Thomas Goirand wrote on 27/03/2024 at 00:24:30+0100: > Hi, > > As you know, there's a large amount of money sleeping in SPI account > for Debian. Do you have ideas on how to spend it? > > Would you be ok spending 100k USD on buying hardware for a new Debian > cloud, for example? I've always volunteered to operate it for Debian, > but it never went through, because I haven't spent time to find where > to host it and so on, but highvoltage liked the idea. Do you like this > idea? Do you think it'd be useful for Debian? Please, let's take some time to think about the implications of spending a shitload of money to buy hardware that we wouldn't know where to host, and that would require a load of maintenance and time. If any discussion should arise on these matters, I'd rather them to occur not as a platform for a DPL candidate but after a reasonable discussion with the concerned parties, eg, DSA. > Also, I found very annoying that we don't have enough buildd, or that > the reproducible build project doesn't have as much hardware as they > would like. Would it be ok to spend another 100k USD for this kind of > things? Same, with slightly less concern regarding hardware volume and maintenance. > For some packages of mine, the current shared runners are too slow to > even run time-based tests of openvswitch for example... What about the > Salsa CI? Couldn't we pay some cloud providers to have faster shared > runners? It wouldn't be hard to hook them. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Sruthi's platform (was: Re: Question to candidates: new legal entity for Debian worldwide)
Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote on 22/03/2024 at 09:54:35+0100: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: >> > >> PS: I am eagerly awaiting a platform from >> Sruthi Chandran . Up to now there still is the old one at >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/platforms/srud . > > Oops: apparently I missed https://www.debian.org/vote/2024/platforms/srud . > Sorry. And thanks for opening the rig: I have one question regarding Sruthi's platform. In it, it is stated that: " I would like to revisit our relationship with the existing trusted organisations, fund management procedure and if needed, explore the possibilities of having more TOs to reduce dependency on one or two. During DebConf23 organising, we had to face numerous fund distribution issues. Some of it definitely was specific to Indian scenario, but still I could think of a lot of improvement that can be done with respect to fund distribution through TOs." Being Debian France's treasurer since 2019 (dunno yet if treasurer will be my main endeavour should I be reelected this year, but I'll definitely continue to help as much as I can whatever my role becomes), I have two issues: 1. Many TOs create more liabilities: I have a certain memory of ffis eV, which disappeared with Debian assets. It's already hard to follow how things go under three TOs, so if we go to more, how do you expect to cope and avoid similar scenarii or worse? 2. SPI is too centric in the TO ecosystem. After having spent two years in DF Treasurer, and more than 30 to 50% of my Debian dedicated time attending to it, I learnt that a) SPI takes 5% of anything it receives for Debian (Debian France does not do that and will never do that) and b) it own 90% of Debian assets while it's very slow to process much things and is reluctant to rebalance these. What's "funny" is that this situation led DebConf organizers to ask us to become the spine of DebConf registration financial aspects, as it seems despite being alone (not anymore since the end of 2022, <3 jipege) and not paid for it, I'm more reactive (and yet, some people could tell that sometimes I take far too much time, and I'd like to apologize for that) on these matters, and also keen on trying to find solutions when things go outside of the defined frame. So, what seems important to me is rather this aspect. How did we get here? What do we intent do to about it? Incorporating Debian is a fine idea to me, and I'd still be happy to manage Debian assets, but at some point, the dyfunctional aspect, to me, is rather the way SPI evolved and the relation that resulted from this evolution. I'd like to hear both your feelings on this, and I'd really appreciate to get Jonathan's insights on this, too, as he did the DPL job for a long time and might have clues I don't have and failed to get from him (bc he's busy) over IRC chat. Thanks -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Candidates question: politics and Debian
Gerardo Ballabio wrote on 21/03/2024 at 10:00:28+0100: > Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: >> I can understand that you want the candidate's opinion on this (after >> all it's important for a lot of people to chose someone with whom one >> shares values) > > Yes, that's why I asked. One candidate already answered and I hope the > other one will also share her opinions. > > But it was also interesting to know your opinions, and if that isn't > deemed off-topic in the context of a DPL election, I'd like to hear > the opinions of other non-candidates too. I personally think it can be relevant. That being said, taking a step back, I can appreciate how a lot of people replying could drown a bit -vote. >> Also, why on earth would you care whether people you've never met (and >> probably never will meet) decide to transition and ask you to use a >> different name/pronoun to address them? > > That is definitely off-topic. If you are interested in knowing my > answer to that or to any other questions, feel free to contact me in > private. Well, feel free to drop a reply in my mailbox, then! >> In a whole, I think it's interesting to see people asking the DPL to >> take position regarding what they see as problematic to them instead of >> taking the matter in their hands and submit resolution proposals for >> these points. > > I kind of see your point -- but this is the discussion period for the > DPL election, and this is the mailing list where the discussion is > supposed to take place, and I was following up to another question > asked to the candidates, so it seemed entirely appropriate to me to > address them. > > And I believe that a GR would be the last resort, rather than the main > way to address problems. Besides, initiating a discussion on this list > would be the starting point for a GR process too. > > If you think it was wrong of me to ask that question, please elaborate. I don't think that it's wrong in essence, although I think our PoV on the matter would not be aligned (which is fine with me). But I do think that, whatever a DPL/Candidate says on the matter, it'll only potentially influence the voters in their votes, but not the way things are in the project. I wouldn't want to change the current general situation in the project, but if I were to, I'd probably bring the matter to the members as a whole. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Candidates question: politics and Debian
Gerardo Ballabio wrote on 19/03/2024 at 09:38:26+0100: > Andreas Tille wrote: >> > How would you as a DPL try to lead a community that focuses on producing a >> > great distribution without getting divided on controversial topics? >> >> I'm not really sure in how far you consider the first statement relevant >> to the question. If your focus is on political controverses I have a >> clear statement: Make sure off-topic messages will be reduced to a >> bare minimum on Debian channels (maximum is one message to invite people >> to a non-Debian channel and mark this invitation [OT]). > > Limiting off-topic posts is obviously agreeable, but there's more than > just that. Yes. First, what is off-topic? Who decides? How do we decide when something deemed off-topic becomes actually on-topic? > Another facet of the question is: do you think that Debian should > support and/or take action on "good causes" that aren't part of its > stated mission (and that some people, including some DDs, might > disagree on being "good")? Anything deemed as important by members of our community could be viewed as in our missions, since I seem to remember that our users are our priority. Debian doesn't live in a bubble outside of the world. > For example (by no means an exhaustive list, feel free to add): > - should Debian aim to reduce its carbon footprint and/or optimize > software for that goal? I don't see how it's up to the DPL to answer this question further than for themselves. I can understand that you want the candidate's opinion on this (after all it's important for a lot of people to chose someone with whom one shares values), but it's up to all of us to address the forementioned point, and it seems worth reminding. > - should Debian support and/or actively drive initiatives to increase > diversity in Debian Developers, or in the software industry in > general, or in the world at large? To me it's the same as above. Also, we saw, painfully, that not caring creates some void around the people being not careful at all. And this voids costs us far more than not having them around. > - should Debian take any measures (boycott, suspend or expel > developers, refuse to consider as a host for Debconf...) against > countries that are perceived by some as "behaving bad" -- as examples > related to current events let me just mention Russia and Israel? It also seems up to all of us via a GR to answer such a question. > - (this is an issue that once hit me personally) should Debian enforce > the use of a particular language with respect to gender issues? For now, I think the CoC already answers this matter. If you want to change it, then as upwards, it's once again up to us collectively to change it. Also, why on earth would you care whether people you've never met (and probably never will meet) decide to transition and ask you to use a different name/pronoun to address them? In a whole, I think it's interesting to see people asking the DPL to take position regarding what they see as problematic to them instead of taking the matter in their hands and submit resolution proposals for these points. Some actually took the opportunity when they wanted to (eg, asking the project to take a position regarding Stallman resuming activity at the FSF), and got their answer (despite it being not what they expected from it) from the members as a whole. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote on 12/11/2023 at 16:10:21+0100: > Dear Debian Fellows, > > Following the email sent by Ilu to debian-project (Message-ID: > <4b93ed08-f148-4c7f-b172-f967f7de7...@gmx.net>), and as we have > discussed during the MiniDebConf UY 2023 with other Debian Members, I > would like to call for a vote about issuing a Debian public statement > regarding > the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the Product Liability Directive > (PLD). The CRA is in the final stage in the legislative process in the > EU Parliament, and we think it will impact negatively the Debian > Project, users, developers, companies that rely on Debian, and the FLOSS > community as a whole. Even if the CRA will be probably adopted before > the time the vote ends (if it takes place), we think it is important to > take a public stand about it. > > - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - > > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act and the > Product Liability Directive > > The European Union is currently preparing a regulation "on horizontal > cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements" known as > the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA). It's currently in the final "trilogue" > phase of the legislative process. The act includes a set of essential > cybersecurity and vulnerability handling requirements for manufacturers. > It will require products to be accompanied by information and > instructions to the user. Manufacturers will need to perform risk > assessments and produce technical documentation and for critical > components, have third-party audits conducted. Discoverded security > issues will have to be reported to European authorities within 24 hours > (1). The CRA will be followed up by the Product Liability Directive > (PLD) which will introduce compulsory liability for software. More > information about the proposed legislation and its consequences in (2). > > While a lot of these regulations seem reasonable, the Debian project > believes that there are grave problems for Free Software projects > attached to them. Therefore, the Debian project issues the following > statement: > > 1. Free Software has always been a gift, freely given to society, to > take and to use as seen fit, for whatever purpose. Free Software has > proven to be an asset in our digital age and the proposed EU Cyber > Resilience Act is going to be detrimental to it. > a. It is Debian's goal to "make the best system we can, so that > free works will be widely distributed and used." Imposing requirements > such as those proposed in the act makes it legally perilous for others > to redistribute our works and endangers our commitment to "provide an > integrated system of high-quality materials _with no legal restrictions_ > that would prevent such uses of the system". (3) > > b. Knowing whether software is commercial or not isn't feasible, > neither in Debian nor in most free software projects - we don't track > people's employment status or history, nor do we check who finances > upstream projects. > > c. If upstream projects stop developing for fear of being in the > scope of CRA and its financial consequences, system security will > actually get worse instead of better. > > d. Having to get legal advice before giving a present to society > will discourage many developers, especially those without a company or > other organisation supporting them. > > 2. Debian is well known for its security track record through practices > of responsible disclosure and coordination with upstream developers and > other Free Software projects. We aim to live up to the commitment made > in the Social Contract: "We will not hide problems." (3) > a. The Free Software community has developed a fine-tuned, well > working system of responsible disclosure in case of security issues > which will be overturned by the mandatory reporting to European > authorities within 24 hours (Art. 11 CRA). > > b. Debian spends a lot of volunteering time on security issues, > provides quick security updates and works closely together with upstream > projects, in coordination with other vendors. To protect its users, > Debian regularly participates in limited embargos to coordinate fixes to > security issues so that all other major Linux distributions can also > have a complete fix when the vulnerability is disclosed. > > c. Security issue tracking and remediation is intentionally > decentralized and distributed. The reporting of security issues to > ENISA and the intended propagation to other authorities and national > administrations would collect all software vulnerabilities in one place, > greatly increasing the risk of leaking information about vulnerabilities > to threat actors,
Re: On community and conflicts
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote on 15/03/2023 at 20:10:01+0100: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:00:55PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: >> Thomas, >> >> Thank you for this post. I found it an informative read. >> >> My personal opinion is that Debian is not the proper venue for discussions >> that do not have a strong nexus to development of Debian itself. As such, I >> don’t feel that any of the emails or posts you wrote were appropriate for >> sending to Debian’s email lists or posting on Debian websites except for the >> email questions about how Debian can best handle the increasing difficulty >> caused by laws that prohibit the free-flow of contributions and software >> between countries (your email of 3 April 2022). >> >> However much I might agree with the factual content of the other emails and >> posts, I don’t think it serves Debian well to get involved in controversial >> topics unless they directly impact the operation of Debian itself (for >> example, laws related to copyright or patents). >> > Yet, would someone posting about the earth being flat, the moon landings > being faked, or aliens being kept in various secret government > facilities around the world have been so swiftly removed from the > project? I sincerely hope so. We have already a lot of energy invested in our daily lives to not lose more in Debian about non-scientific garbage. Debian is not for that, and no place should be used for that anyway. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Results for Voting secrecy
Felix Lechner wrote on 27/03/2022 at 22:30:53+0200: > Hi Kurt, > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> >> Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have >> been an option, or people would have voted it equally. > > People were confused. > > Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time > for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted > that option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the > constitutional protection against changes to the constitution. > > The constitution is the project's foundational document. > > Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the > deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled > to a warning from the Project Secretary. > > The vote was procedurally defective. > >> Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared >> to the NOTA option. > > Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead > of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent. > > I do not believe it is possible to reconstruct the electorate's intent > solely from the beat matrix. A better approximation, however, would be > to also consider the 107 votes who placed Option 3 ahead of Option 2 > in the latter's majority test. That would yield 185 / (61 + 107) = 1.1 > which is less than the factor of 3 mandated by section 4.1.2 of the > constitution. > > As far as I can see, the result is unconstitutional and thus invalid. > >> I currently don't see anything wrong with this vote, so I see no reason >> to redo it. > > Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to > replace the Project Secretary. So… you state the vote is unconstitutional based on an interpretation you are making of the potential misleading state some ballot option would have had. And your solution to "fix" this is to *demand* an _unconstitutional_ decision from the Project Secretary who is responsible for making sure things stay constitutional, otherwise you threaten him to get replaced for doing exactly what the project expects him to do? I know these times are rough. I know some people in some countries are trying to show one can look like a democrat while not being one at all. But seeing this, there and now is kind of painful. I see it as quite violent and inappropriate. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be quite worried to have you as a DPL. FWIW, Kurt, I'd like to express to you my full sympathy and support. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Question to all candidates: Ongoing/future legal projects
Gunnar Wolf wrote on 20/03/2022 at 17:44:44+0100: > Felix Lechner dijo [Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 06:49:50AM -0700]: >> Hi Gunnar, >> >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:47 PM Gunnar Wolf wrote: >> > >> > This year I think I will break my usual >> > practice, and vote a certain DPL candidate below NotA :-\ >> >> With that statement, you potentially committed two >> infractions—depending on where you live. >> >> First, revealing a vote is widely looked down upon. Why would you do >> it other than to sway people who have not made up their minds? It's >> why some folks desire to have secret votes. Your conduct might also be >> illegal in some places. [1] > > Debian is not a country. Our elections are not bound by national or > state-level electoral laws. > >> Second, you expressed a preference among candidates while holding >> public office. [2] That is a big gray area, but restrictions exist in >> the US [3] and, to some extent, in Germany. [4] On a Debian list, you >> are an office holder with expanded authorities. Would it not be better >> to act moderately compared to membership, on average? > > I am just a Debian Developer, just as you are. I happen to have > received some delegations... but that's an internal issue of an > organization -- a not-legally-incorporated organization even. > > If you plan on becoming a DPL, I suggest you to look into > understanding the difference between the role of the Debian Project > Leader and that of a President, Prime Minister, Supreme Dictator, or > something like that. I'm sorry to add to the bad atmosphere, but reading Felix' prose and this subthread, I hope he doesn't ever become a DPL. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Reaffirm public voting
Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia > Rizzolo ]] > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> Reaffirm public voting >> == >> >> Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have >> open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting >> system as it is. >> >> Rationale: >> >> The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details, >> probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to >> achieve fully, so this GR is bound to a similar fate as the 'publish >> debian-private' vote, which was voted for and then was never implemented. >> >> A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and >> will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals >> of openness and transparency. >> >> And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which >> is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot, >> and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option. >> >> I'm seeking sponsors for this amendment to the current GR. > > > Assuming you meant this as "this ballot" instead of "this amendment" > (following the new GR flow), I sponsor this. > > > > If I were to add my thoughts: political GRs don't belong in Debian, > please take them elsewhere. For non-political votes there is no use > for private voting. Is init systems GR a political GR? I'm pretty sure some gave double thoughts before voting because of the shitstorm/flame that had happened before the vote. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR Option 1: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote
Hi,
I'm still happy with sponsoring the following ballot option.
Sam Hartman wrote on 03/03/2022 at 21:54:36+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2C6C4C3CA8378674 created at
> 2022-03-03T21:54:36+0100 using EDDSA]]
>
> I hereby amend the ballot option I proposed using the procedure in
> Constitution section A.1. My understanding is that this amendment
> replaces my ballot option unless one of the sponsors objects.
> There are two changes. The first is the change to rationale I sent out
> yesterday. The second is to insert a newline between the General
> Resolution title and the following line of '=' characters.
>
>
> I also believe this advances the end of the discussion period to next
> Thursday (although other actions may advance the end of the discussion
> period further).
>
>
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> During the vote for GR_2021_002, several developers said they were
> uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
> and ballot ranking would be public.
> A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
> election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
> if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
> tally sheet public.
> Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
> would still be valuable public information.
>
> This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
> At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
> conduct a vote via email. If the requirement for email voting is
> removed, then an experiment is planned at least with the belenios voting
> system [1]. belenios may provide better voter secrecy and an easier
> web-based voting system than our current email approach.
> If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
> would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
> another constitutional amendment.
>
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/yhotrixtz3aip...@roeckx.be
>
> This proposal increases our reliance on the secretary's existing power
> to decide how votes are conducted. The lack of an override mechanism
> for secretary decisions about how we conduct votes has not been a
> problem so far. However, if we are going to rely on this power to
> consider questions like whether the project has sufficient consensus to
> adopt an alternate voting mechanism, we need an override mechanism.
> So, this proposal introduces such a mechanism.
>
> Summary of Changes
> ==
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
> public.
>
> 2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.
>
> 3) Clarify that the developers can replace the secretary at any time.
>
> 4) Provide a procedure for overriding the decision of the project
> secretary or their delegate. Overriding the decision of what super
> majority is required or overriding the determination of election
> outcome requires a 3:1 majority. The chair of the technical committee
> decides who conducts such votes.
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
> of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
> confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
> General Resolution
> ==
>
> The developers resolve to make the changes to the Debian Constitution
> embodied in git commit ed88a1e3c1fc367ee89620a73047d84a797c9a1d.
> As of February 23, 2022, this commit can be found at
> https://salsa.debian.org/hartmans/webwml/-/commit/ed88a1e3c1fc367ee89620a73047d84a797c9a1d
>
> For convenience a word-diff of the changes is included below. In case
> the diff differs from the commit, the commit governs.
>
> @@ -179,9 +179,27 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>
>
> [-In case of-]{+Appoint+} a [-disagreement between-]{+new secretary.
> In the normal case ( 7.2) where+} the project
> leader and {+secretary agree on+} the [-incumbent-]{+next+} secretary,
> [-appoint a new secretary.-]{+this power of+}
> {+the developers is not used.+}
>
> {++}
> {+Override a decision of the project secretary or their+}
> {+delegate.+}
>
> {+Overriding the determination of what super majority is required+}
> {+for a particular ballot option or overriding the determination of+}
> {+the outcome of an election requires the developers to agree by a+}
> {+3:1 majority. The determination of the majority required to+}
> {+override a decision of the secretary is not subject to+}
> {+override.+}
>
> {+The chair of the technical committee decides who acts as+}
> {+secretary for a general resolution to override a decision of the+}
> {+project secretary or their delegate. If the decision was not made+}
> {+by the chair of the technical committee, the committee chair may+}
> {+themselves act as secretary. The decision of
Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
Kurt Roeckx wrote on 26/02/2022 at 12:47:16+0100: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional >> amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain >> sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works. > > I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer > required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people like > it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see about > how we pick a different system, or not, later. Stéphane could really give you some insigihts, here. I don't know if that's in the scope of this GR, but I'd expect the technical choice of the voting system to not be constitutionally defined. I'd expect the constitution to set some unavoidable requirements, but not define the exact technical tool, which could be set in a DEP. Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote
I sponsor the resolution quoted below.
Sam Hartman wrote on 23/02/2022 at 18:19:20+0100:
> I propose the followiwng general resolution, which will require a 3:1
> super majority to pass.
> I'm seeking sponsors for this resolution.
>
> Rationale
> =
>
> During the vote for GR_2021_002o, several developers said they were
> uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
> and ballot ranking would be public.
> A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
> election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
> if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
> tally sheet public.
> Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
> would still be valuable public information.
>
> This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
> At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
> conduct a vote via email. There are no current plans to move away from
> email, although some members of the project want to explore
> alternatives. If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
> would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
> another constitutional amendment.
>
> This proposal relies on the secretary's existing power to decide how
> votes are conducted. During discussion we realized that there is no
> mechanism to override a specific decision of the secretary, and the
> language allowing the project to replace the secretary is ambiguous.
>
> Summary of Changes
> ==
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
> public.
>
> 2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.
>
> 3) Clarify that the developers can replace the secretary at any time.
>
> 4) Provide a procedure for overriding the decision of the project
> secretary or their delegate. Overriding the decision of what super
> majority is required or overriding the determination of election
> outcome requires a 3:1 majority. The chair of the technical committee
> decides who conducts such votes.
>
>
> 6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
> of the outcome given the votes cast and must permit developers to
> confirm their vote is included in the votes cast.
>
> General Resolution==
>
> The developers resolve to make the changes to the Debian Constitution
> embodied in git commit ed88a1e3c1fc367ee89620a73047d84a797c9a1d.
> As of February 23, 2022, this commit can be found at
> https://salsa.debian.org/hartmans/webwml/-/commit/ed88a1e3c1fc367ee89620a73047d84a797c9a1d
>
> For convenience a word-diff of the changes is included below. In case
> the diff differs from the commit, the commit governs.
>
> @@ -179,9 +179,27 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>
>
> [-In case of-]{+Appoint+} a [-disagreement between-]{+new
> secretary. In the normal case ( 7.2) where+} the project
> leader and {+secretary agree on+} the [-incumbent-]{+next+} secretary,
> [-appoint a new secretary.-]{+this power of+}
> {+the developers is not used.+}
>
> {++}
> {+Override a decision of the project secretary or their+}
> {+delegate.+}
>
> {+Overriding the determination of what super majority is required+}
> {+for a particular ballot option or overriding the determination of+}
> {+the outcome of an election requires the developers to agree by a+}
> {+3:1 majority. The determination of the majority required to+}
> {+override a decision of the secretary is not subject to+}
> {+override.+}
>
> {+The chair of the technical committee decides who acts as+}
> {+secretary for a general resolution to override a decision of the+}
> {+project secretary or their delegate. If the decision was not made+}
> {+by the chair of the technical committee, the committee chair may+}
> {+themselves act as secretary. The decision of who acts as secretary+}
> {+for such a general resolution is not subject to override.+}
>
>
> 4.2. Procedure
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
>vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes {+cast in sufficient
> detail that anyone may verify the outcome of the election from the votes
> cast. The+}
> {+ identity of a developer casting a particular vote is not made+}
> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm their vote
> is included in the votes+} cast. The voting period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up
>to 1 week by the Project Leader.
>
>
>
> @@ -247,7 +266,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>
>
> Votes are cast[-by email-] in a manner suitable to the Secretary.
> The Secretary determines for each
Re: GR: Change the resolution process (2021-11-25 revision)
Russ Allbery wrote on 26/11/2021 at 04:25:45+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at > 2021-11-26T04:25:45+0100 using RSA]] > Here is an updated version of my proposal, which incorporates the formal > amendment to change the default option for TC resolutions to also be "None > of the above" and fixes two typos. > > > Rationale > = > > We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional > mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General > Resolution for vote: > > * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used > strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing > additional ballot options. > * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the > vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other > ballot options. > * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot > options is difficult to understand. > * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General > Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may, > contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above > options they wish to reject. > > The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in > the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002, > which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected > result. > > This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by > > * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution > process since they have different needs; > * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is > ready to proceed to a vote; > * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then > triggering a vote; > * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the > vote is predictable; > * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes; > * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a > clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment; > * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and > * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary. > > It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for > Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies > responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General > Resolution under point 4.2.1. > > Effect of the General Resolution > > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution > requires a 3:1 majority. > > Section 4.2.4 > - > > Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be > varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader." (A modified version of > this provision is added to section A below.) Add to the end of this > point: > > The default option is "None of the above." > > Section 4.2.5 > - > > Replace "amendments" with "ballot options." > > Section 5.1.5 > - > > Replace in its entirety with: > > Propose General Resolutions and ballot options for General > Resolutions. When proposed by the Project Leader, sponsors for the > General Resolution or ballot option are not required; see §4.2.1. > > Section 5.2.7 > - > > Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > > Section 6.1.7 > - > > Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > > Add to the end of this point: > > There is no casting vote. If there are multiple options with no > defeats in the Schwartz set at the end of A.5.8, the winner will be > randomly chosen from those options, via a mechanism chosen by the > Project Secretary. > > Section 6.3 > --- > > Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with: > > 1. Resolution process. > >The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a >resolution for vote: > >1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution. > This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option > being the default option of "None of the above". The proposer > of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option. > >2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional > ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they > proposed. > >3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, > the process is canceled. > >4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the > ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but > if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to > calling for a vote before the vote
Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)
Russ Allbery wrote on 23/11/2021 at 23:39:51+0100: > Kurt Roeckx writes: >> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:04:07AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1 >>> majority, and am seeking sponsors. > >> This is now at: >> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_003 > > Thank you! > >> I did not add any of the corrections, you did not sign them, you >> indicated you'll have more later. > > Yes, indeed, no problem. Currently, I'm aware of only one correction I pointed out a typo, but probably did not emphasize it clearly enough. :) > 4. The addition of a ballot option or the change via a amendment of a I think it's "an amendment", not "a amendment". -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 22/11/2021 at 16:15:34+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at > 2021-11-22T16:15:27+0100 using RSA]] > I propose the following amendment. I expect Russ to not accept it, and > am looking for seconds. > > Rationale > = > > Much of the rationale of Russ' proposal still applies, and indeed this > amendment builds on it. However, the way the timing works is different, > on purpose. > > Our voting system, which neither proposal modifies, as a condorcet > voting mechanism, does not suffer directly from too many options on the > ballot. While it is desirable to make sure the number of options on the > ballot is not extremely high for reasons of practicality and voter > fatigue, it is nonetheless of crucial importance that all the *relevant* > options are represented on the ballot, so that the vote outcome is not > questioned for the mere fact that a particular option was not > represented on the ballot. Making this possible requires that there is > sufficient time to discuss all relevant opinions. > > Russ' proposal introduces a hard limit of 3 weeks to any and all ballot > processes, assuming that that will almost always be enough, and relying > on withdrawing and restarting the voting process in extreme cases where > it turns out more time is needed; in Russ' proposal, doing so would > increase the discussion time by another two weeks at least (or one if > the DPL reduces the discussion time). > > In controversial votes, I believe it is least likely for all ballot > proposers to be willing to use this escape hatch of withdrawing the vote > and restarting the process; and at the same time, controversial votes > are the most likely to need a lot of discussion to build a correct > ballot, which implies they would be most likely to need some extra time > -- though not necessarily two more weeks -- for the ballot to be > complete. > > At the same time, I am not insensitive to arguments of predictability, > diminishing returns, and process abuse which seem to be the main > arguments in favour of a hard time limit at three weeks. > > For this reason, my proposal does not introduce a hard limit, and > *always* makes it theoretically possible to increase the discussion > time, but does so in a way that extending the discussion time becomes > harder and harder as time goes on. I believe it is better for the > constitution to allow a group of people to have a short amount of extra > time so they can finish their proposed ballot option, than to require > the full discussion period to be restarted through the withdrawal and > restart escape hatch. At the same time, this escape hatch is not > removed, although I expect it to be less likely to be used. > > The proposed mechanism sets the initial discussion time to 1 week, but > allows it to be extended reasonably easily to 2 or 3 weeks, makes it > somewhat harder to reach 4 weeks, and makes it highly unlikely (but > still possible) to go beyond that. > > Text of the GR > == > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution > requires a 3:1 majority. > > Sections 4 through 7 > > > Same changes as in Russ' proposal > > Section A > - > > Replace section A as per Russ' proposal, with the following changes: > > A.1.1. Strike the sentence "The maximum discussion period is 3 weeks". > > A.1.4. Strike in its entirety > > A.1.5. Rename to A.1.4. > > A.1.6. Strike in its entirety > > A.1.7. Rename to A.1.5. > > After A.2, insert: > > A.3. Extending the discussion time. > > 1. When less than 48 hours remain in the discussion time, any Developer >may propose an extension to the discussion time, subject to the >limitations of §A.3.3. These extensions may be seconded according to >the same rules that apply to new ballot options. > > 2. As soon as a time extension has received the required number of >seconds, these seconds are locked in and cannot be withdrawn, and the >time extension is active. > > 3. When a time extension has received the required number of seconds, >its proposers and seconders may no longer propose or second any >further time extension for the same ballot, and any further seconds >for the same extension proposal will be ignored for the purpose of >this paragraph. In case of doubt, the Project Secretary decides how >the order of seconds is determined. > > 4. The first two successful time extensions will extend the discussion >time by one week; any further time extensions will extend the >discussion time by 72 hours. > > 5. Once the discussion time is longer than 4 weeks, any Developer may >object to further time extensions. Developers who have previously >proposed or seconded a time extension may object as well. If the >number of objections outweigh the proposer and their seconders, >including seconders who
Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)
Russ Allbery wrote on 20/11/2021 at 19:04:07+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 7D80315C5736DE75 created at > 2021-11-20T19:04:07+0100 using RSA]] > I propose the following General Resolution, which will require a 3:1 > majority, and am seeking sponsors. > > > Rationale > = > > We have uncovered several problems with the current constitutional > mechanism for preparing a Technical Committee resolution or General > Resolution for vote: > > * The timing of calling for a vote is discretionary and could be used > strategically to cut off discussion while others were preparing > additional ballot options. > * The original proposer of a GR has special control over the timing of the > vote, which could be used strategically to the disadvantage of other > ballot options. > * The description of the process for adding and managing additional ballot > options is difficult to understand. > * The current default choice of "further discussion" for a General > Resolution has implications beyond rejecting the other options that may, > contrary to its intent, discourage people Developers ranking it above > options they wish to reject. > > The actual or potential implications of these problems caused conflict in > the Technical Committee systemd vote and in GRs 2019-002 and 2021-002, > which made it harder for the project to reach a fair and widely-respected > result. > > This constitutional change attempts to address those issues by > > * separating the Technical Committee process from the General Resolution > process since they have different needs; > * requiring (passive) consensus among TC members that a resolution is > ready to proceed to a vote; > * setting a maximum discussion period for a TC resolution and then > triggering a vote; > * setting a maximum discussion period for a GR so that the timing of the > vote is predictable; > * extending the GR discussion period automatically if the ballot changes; > * modifying the GR process to treat all ballot options equally, with a > clearer process for addition, withdrawal, and amendment; > * changing the default option for a GR to "none of the above"; and > * clarifying the discretion extended to the Project Secretary. > > It also corrects a technical flaw that left the outcome of the vote for > Technical Committee Chair undefined in the event of a tie, and clarifies > responsibilities should the Technical Committee put forward a General > Resolution under point 4.2.1. > > Effect of the General Resolution > > > The Debian Developers, by way of General Resolution, amend the Debian > constitution under point 4.1.2 as follows. This General Resolution > requires a 3:1 majority. > > Section 4.2.4 > - > > Strike the sentence "The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be > varied by up to 1 week by the Project Leader." (A modified version of > this provision is added to section A below.) Add to the end of this > point: > > The default option is "None of the above." > > Section 4.2.5 > - > > Replace "amendments" with "ballot options." > > Section 5.1.5 > - > > Replace in its entirety with: > > Propose General Resolutions and ballot options for General > Resolutions. When proposed by the Project Leader, sponsors for the > General Resolution or ballot option are not required; see §4.2.1. > > Section 5.2.7 > - > > Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > > Section 6.1.7 > - > > Replace "section §A.6" with "section §A.5". > > Add to the end of this point: > > There is no casting vote. If there are multiple options with no > defeats in the Schwartz set at the end of A.5.8, the winner will be > randomly chosen from those options, via a mechanism chosen by the > Project Secretary. > > Section 6.3 > --- > > Replace 6.3.1 in its entirety with: > > 1. Resolution process. > >The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a >resolution for vote: > >1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution. > This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option > being the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer > of the resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option. > >2. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose additional > ballot options or modify or withdraw a ballot option they > proposed. > >3. If all ballot options except the default option are withdrawn, > the process is canceled. > >4. Any member of the Technical Committee may call for a vote on the > ballot as it currently stands. This vote begins immediately, but > if any other member of the Technical Committee objects to > calling for a vote before the vote completes, the vote is > canceled and has no effect. > >5. Two
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote on 11/11/2021 at 13:56:24+0100: > If we as a project allow some to make changes without considering the > concerns of those affected by the changes, we are not being faithful > to our own principles. That's true, but it doesn't look like it's what's being done here. Felix proposed something, and it's being debated. In particular it seems most agree that a GR is not an appropriate idea, but rather let FTPMaster Team and the DPL convey and find a path if it's relevant. Apart from that, we were many to raise the opinion that removing the "master" term out of "it reminds slavery" motive was not something we thought sane. IOW, it seems, to me, that the project does quite efficiently what is expected on these grounds. Opinions are expressed and the discussion goes on. Mind, it's not even close to a flame, so it's actually quite nice! With best regards, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Do we want to Handle Secret Ballots in the same GR as Voting Changes
Le 10 novembre 2021 04:08:58 GMT+01:00, Bdale Garbee a écrit : >Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes: > >> Then, we realized that we could probably add Secret voting (if it felt >> right to everyone) as the discussion on Russ' proposal didn't go in a >> too consuming spiral. > >Perahaps this exposes a distinction between those of you who have spent >a lot of time thinking about these issues recently and feel that they >all more or less are part of the same whole, and others of us who are >trying to follow along relatively casually knowing we'll be asked to >vote at some point? > >I'm pretty confident we can collectively figure out how to vote >meaningfully in either case, but I'd personally prefer to see secret >voting treated as a separate GR with opportunities for significant >consensus building before a vote is called. > >Bdale I'm quite haépy to handle secret voting in another GR. :) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: Do we want to Handle Secret Ballots in the same GR as Voting Changes
Holger Levsen wrote on 08/11/2021 at 18:21:02+0100: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 091AB856069AAA1C created at > 2021-11-08T18:20:57+0100 using RSA]] > On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:12:33PM -0500, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: >> > I'd like to ask the community whether we'd like to handle secret ballots >> > now, or in a separate GR. >> I'd tend to be in favor of making this a separate GR. > [...] >> Adding yet another change to this proposal would only make things more >> complex and make the issues at hand harder to understand. > > all of this and additionally personally I'd also find it disrespectful to > hijack/piggyback (on) Russ' work. Hi Holger, Sorry if it seemed (as I'm one of the drafters of the secret ballot and Russ' proposal, I feel a bit responsible for this) that there was an attempt to hijack anything. A bit of context: When the GR about RMS occurred, I expressed my intent to have some changes made to the Constitution, in particular regarding secret voting. Russ reacted because he had also things in his mind he wanted to see become more concrete and we started a discussion that took quite some time at a time when I was a bit more available. Sam joined us in the discussion and Wouter also at some point recently. Then, and I'm at fault I think (because I got drowned in my personal life stuff and did not state it clearly to Sam and Russ), things kind of went under the dust until we attempted to resume. In the meantime, it became clear that proposing Secret Voting and the other changes was not going to be easy because it made quite a lot. So Russ went on with everything except Secret Voting. Then, we realized that we could probably add Secret voting (if it felt right to everyone) as the discussion on Russ' proposal didn't go in a too consuming spiral. Russ said he was not against the idea. Hence Sam's mail, which, despite what it could have inspired to you, is not an attempt to hijack or piggyback any work made by Russ or anyone else. I hope this helps. Cheers! :) -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
Hi, Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 06/11/2021 at 00:31:04+0100: > If I was given the question: would you like to get rid of the word > "master" because it reminds somebody of slavery, my answer would be > NO. (Incidentally, I have similar thoughts about blacklist/whitelist > and similar SJW crap) In fact, depending how the ballots are worded, I > might just even vote against this specific proposal. I feel about the same. That being said, the name is indeed outdated, and "Debian Archive Team" sounds quite nice. > But I do support this stance. > I'd love to see something like GRs used way way more often, if only > the process was much lighter in bureaucracy I agree, more GR is not necessarily bad. It would be in the current situation because it's a lot of work for the process to happen, but in general collecting a project-members-wide opinion if and when possible sounds quite nice. Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Opposing strict time limits
Wouter Verhelst wrote on 22/10/2021 at 19:42:13+0200: > [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2DFC519954181296 created at > 2021-10-22T19:42:07+0200 using RSA]] > Hi all, > > Let me start by apologizing for taking this long to send this email. The > attentive reader will have noticed my name in Russ' original draft as > one of the people who reviewed it. When Russ sent his initial proposal, > I started drafting a large response that I lost due to a silly mistake > on my end. Life then intervened, and I didn't have time to follow up > until now. > > That said, > > I think introducing a fixed time limit on a GR is a bad idea, for > various reasons. > > First of all, no matter how careful we choose a time limit based on > historical precedence, I think it is naive to assume we will be able to > come up with a time limit that will always work for all future GR > proposals. Some issues are contentious, and they take time to work > through them. In my reading, the longest we have ever taken to decide on > a vote was for GR 2006-003, where the initial proposal was sent in June > but the eventual vote only opened in September[1]. > > An argument that has been brought forward to avoid that problem is that > it is theoretically possible to discuss matters on this list before > starting the formal procedure. While that is true, I would like to point > out that the whole reason for the introduction of this time limit is so > that people can't game the system by using procedural measures to delay > the vote, possibly indefinitely. If we don't want to allow people to > delay the vote, we should *also* not allow people to game the system by > forcing a vote prematurely, through proposing a formal GR when someone > else offers incomplete ideas that they would have preferred to see > discussed first. Again, I would point to GR 2006-003 where something > along those lines happened[1]. > > I fear that in order to avoid that pitfall, people may wish to discuss > things in private amongst themselves rather than posting something to > the -vote list when they want to start looking at a problem, which will > give them an unfair time advantage. > > Additionally, it is not always possible to foresee all of the complexity > in a problem space; we may be quite a bit into the formal discussion of > the ballot when we decide that there are some significant issues that > require exploring and which would benefit from more time. If everyone > involved agrees that this is a good thing, then I think we should allow > for that possibility; the proposed procedure does not do so, and I fear > that this may result in rushed proposals that are suboptimal and do not > resolve the issue at hand. > > An argument that has been brought forward to remedy this is that it is > theoretically possible to advance a vote for the default option in such > a case. While this is true, that is problematic: first of all, it will > delay the resolution of the situation by a significantly larger amount > of time (you will need to go through a complete vote only to have to do > the whole process over again). I think it is relevant in this context > that we only managed to do this one time in the history of the project, > in a vote where I can't help but feel like the proponents of the vote > tried to game the system (2006-005[2]). > > We might have been able to use this for 2004-004, but alas. > > Additionally, I believe that proposing we vote the default option more > often is antithesis to what we *should* be doing. I think a GR vote > should generally be the final answer to an issue we are dealing with, > and that in order to do that, we should ensure that the ballot is > complete, with all relevant options represented. I don't think we get > that if we introduce a rigid timeline that cannot be diverted from in > exceptional situations. > > I hear and agree with the argument against such a procedure; having a > way to delay the vote which everyone can trigger opens the system up to > abuse, which could allow the vote to be delayed indefinitely if > formulated badly. I believe the answer to that is not to remove the > option to delay the vote entirely, but to restrict the conditions under > which such a delay can be invoked; only provide it to the DPL, or > provide only a limited number of delays, or allow a majority of people > who proposed options that are already on the ballot to object, or > something along those lines. The goal should be to end up with a > procedure where *can* extend the discussion period if discussions are > actually still happening and we believe it is valid, without allowing > people who want to avoid any vote from happening entirely to delay > things indefinitely. > > Additionally, this proposal does not remedy what I think is another > issue we have with our procedure, which I have been wanting to resolve > one way or the other for quite a while but have no idea how to do so; > the "I want to create a ballot with all possible
Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Russ Allbery wrote on 28/09/2021 at 03:51:05+0200: > [Snip] > This proposal was already sufficiently complex that it does not attempt to > address the secret ballot. I believe that should be a separate discussion > and a separate GR since it's substantially orthogonal to this one. Note that we discussed the secret ballot privately and I intend to make a draft proposal after the GR for this Constitutional change. -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Privacy guarantees
Felix Lechner writes: > Hi, > > A fellow developer and I have reached an impasse over the appropriate > level of privacy guarantees in Debian. [1] Would this esteemed group > please advise if the topic is in some form suitable for a General > Resolution? > > The aggrieved party is likely to appeal my forthcoming lack of action > to the Technical Committee. [2] While the Technical Committee is more > or less Debian's Supreme Court, it seems unfair to burden that select > group of ours with matters of broad social significance. The Policy > Team was similarly reluctant. They have not acted on the matter in > nearly eight years. [3] > > The maintainer of a well-known web browser took a stance in the > middle. [4] My own position was outlined here. [5] > > In the spirit of seeking common ground, I would like to offer to the > aggrieved party that we co-sponsor a General Resolution together. Is > that appropriate? Thank you! > > Kind regards > Felix Lechner > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/743694 > [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743694#44 > [3] https://bugs.debian.org/726998 > [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765503#5 > [5] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743694#24 A GR sounds quite big, but if that's what you want, please go for it. I personally agree with your opinion as stated on the bug report post 24, and therefore I consider the current situation as good as it is. With best regards, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 15:12:16+0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit : > Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of > perceived differences and because FD plays a special role. > But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to > not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit > counterintuitive. > Have a look for yourself, it's a fun exercise. > A large number of voters stop ranking when they get to FD. I'm not > sure why, but in many cases this renders their ballot pretty much > powerless because options with a chance of winning are not ranked. > > The details are very interesting, but any discussion of the actual > options leads back to discussing the topic of the GR proper, so I > really don't want to go there. I really think we should not try to "fix" a system because wewant to believe it's broken because other people whom we didn't ask their opinion have done some thing we would not have done ourselves. My personal vote was -221--35 and except for the fact I set FD to 5 and not 4 out of a typo (which has no impact on my vote as I have not ranked anything 4, everything here was intentional. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 12:50:25+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58) > > Adrian Bunk writes: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >>... > > >> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways, > > >> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted > > >> amendments but not new ballot options, which makes little logical sense > > >> and constantly confuses people. There's no maximum discussion period > > >> defined, which means fixes for that risk introducing a filibuster. > > >> > > >> * Calling for votes is defined as a separate action from the end of the > > >> discussion period, but in practice the constitution allows any > > >> developer > > >> to call for a GR vote via an abuse of process that probably wasn't > > >> intended, and even apart from that, the set of people who can call for > > >> a > > >> vote is strange and not very defensible. > > >>... > > > > > > The process to shorten the discussion period is also suboptimal. > > > > > > In the latest GR the way the discussion period was shortened was > > > perceived by many as an anti-democratic attempt to suppress discussions > > > about the contents and alternative ballot options. > > > > > > And there was plenty left to discuss (including wording of ballot > > > options and secrecy of the vote) when the minimum discussion period > > > ended and the vote was called. > > > > > > I would suggest to replace the option of shortening the discussion > > > period with the possibility of early calling for a vote after a week > > > that can be vetoed by any developer within 24 hours. This would ensure > > > that shorter discussion periods would only happen when there is > > > consensus that nothing is left to be discussed. > > > > Would you expect a different result if that had been done in this case? > > I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led to > fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a higher > likelihood that Debian would have decided to make a (more well-written) > statement instead of the current outcome of not making a statement. History tends to show as far as we are concerned that the longer the discussion, the more look-alike options come and the less the ballots are easy to digest and fill in. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 15:55:19-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable. > > Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which > were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter > with prejudice, even though the weight to bring them again may be > substantial. Therefore, doing nothing is very similar to doing nothing > but talking more. Stating "I shall not make a statement" isn't, to me, doing nothing. It's far the opposite actually, it's expressing the idea that the matter is outside our scope. While FD here just means maybe in some future we'll express some opinion on it, but first we have to discuss it more. As for the meaning of the vote itself, I will not risk any coin on it. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 12:46:38-0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > "Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes: > > > Sam, you make an excellent point about gaps between options, and that > > a ranking does not show the strength of preferences. Like, I might > > prefer ALPHA >>> BETA > GAMMA while you prefer ALPHA > BETA >>> GAMMA. > > So if it's down to ALPHA vs BETA, my vote should shift things more > > than yours, while if it's down to BETA vs GAMMA, your vote should > > shift things more than mine. And if we do sorta-maybe try to encode > > this with where FD is in the ranking, it does not actually have this > > effect. > > > If we wanted to encode this information more fully, we would have to > > go with some system where people give numeric strengths to each gap in > > their preferences. And to avoid people just pegging them all to > > maximum strength, we'd have to put a limit on the total strength in a > > single ballot. > > I think it's worth observing that this discussion started with "our voting > system is too complicated and I think some people are making nonsense > votes because of it" and has now arrived at "we should make our voting > system considerably more complicated to improve its expressive power." > > This all seems extremely speculative. Is there some GR whose result you > think did not accurately represent the correct outcome given the > preferences of the people who voted? Precisely what problem are you > trying to solve here? I think we are good ad nitpicking and this is some of it. :p (more seriously, I think our system does quite correclty what it is designed to do) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result
Le dimanche 18 avril 2021 à 22:18:22+0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit : > The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But > there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. > > If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7 > and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any > reason for someone to rank them very differently. So if the voters are > rational, we'd think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and > 8 ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is ranked the > same as other options, then they should both be. Yet many of the > ballots rank one but not the other, or rank them very differently. > Some voters ranked either option 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything > else to default. It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually > preferred option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and > 8. > > We tend to assume that the DD electorate is highly sophisticated and > rational and understand how to correctly express their preferences, > and how ranking works. But a quick perusal of the actual ballots has > disabused me of that notion. > > The usual reaction to this sort of thing is to alter the voter > instructions. But people have intuitions for how voting works, and > blurbs might not be very effective at changing their behaviour. Hi, I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What does FD Mean
Le dimanche 11 avril 2021 à 20:53:33+0300, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote: > > > > Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption > > that people who voted 1--- were too stupid to do it right. > >... > > I am not saying people were stupid. > > It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is very > different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are > a nerd in voting systems. I've discussed with another Front Desk member about adding a question on our voting system in the nm templates. The idea being to make sure if people have questions, they get some answers, and otherwise relevant pointers to doc. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot
Le dimanche 11 avril 2021 à 18:12:56+0200, Micha Lenk a écrit :
> Hi Pierre-Elliott,
>
> Am 11.04.21 um 14:27 schrieb Pierre-Elliott Bécue:
> > > Those who insist on making the personal views on this (non-technical!!!)
> > > GR public should be ashamed of dragging their fellows into denuding
> > > themselves for no good reason.
> >
> > I am really worried that someone could say that holding to our values,
> > respecting our processes and avoiding to create potentially
> > indesirable precedents is "no good reason" and grounds to be ashamed.
>
> I haven't seen anybody suggesting to violate our processes or alike. What
> I've seen is a request to make use of 5.1(3) of our constitution, but I
> consider that a (granted, rarely used) part of our processes.
>
> What I see is a tension between our social contract and our code of conduct.
> The social contract paragraph three ("We will not hide problems") talks
> about doing our business in public, yet refers to our bug reports. On the
> other hand our code of conduct paragraph five ("Be open") clarifies that
> public methods of communication are preferred, "unless posting something
> sensitive." Reading the many mails on this context let me think that we have
> a rough consensus to consider the RMS GR results something sensitive. So, I
> consider the publication of the vote results for this GR a violation of our
> code of conduct...
>
> We haven't been in such a situation before (e.g. I am not aware of any
> previous GR about personal related issues), so I think we as a project need
> to find a balance for handling such situations in the future. Long term to
> me this could mean to change our constitution, e.g. allowing secret votes
> also for non leader votes in the future. Yet this doesn't help in the
> current situation.
>
> Pierre-Elliott, given the current social contract and the code of conduct,
> would you mind to elaborate a bit how you see our processes violated by
> letting the current leader make use of our constitution 5.1(3) to publish
> the RMS GR results as an anonymized tally sheet like in our yearly leader
> elections?
The CoC, although essential, doesn't supersedes the Constitution. It
actually is superseded by the Constitution.
4.2.3 reads "after the vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes
cast".
We are trying to use another part of the constitution to override this
part of the constitution.
Given how we do usually, I think this 5.1.3 usage is not consistent with
why it has been written, and therefore I think we are trying to break a
well-established process out of fear.
And I think this could give incentive to the outside to apply more
pressure the next time to see how much more we can bend.
Whether you agree or not, I honestly don't really care, because as I
already said: I won't make a fuss about it if the DPL tries to make the
vote secret and the secretary follows.
With best regards,
--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot
Le 11 avril 2021 01:02:18 GMT+02:00, Eduard Bloch a écrit : >Those who insist on making the personal views on this (non-technical!!!) >GR public should be ashamed of dragging their fellows into denuding >themselves for no good reason. I am really worried that someone could say that holding to our values, respecting our processes and avoiding to create potentially indesirable precedents is "no good reason" and grounds to be ashamed. No one tries to shame you for defending a switch to a secret vote. Maybe you could just do the same. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot
Le samedi 10 avril 2021 à 09:00:51-0700, Elana Hashman a écrit : > On Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:12:26 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > There has been increasing harassment of people based on what they are > > expected to vote on the rms gr. > > People on both sides have expressed increasing discomfort with the idea > > of voting in public with the entire world knowing how they voted. > > > > I argued on another list that it would be appropriate for the DPL (with > > the concurrence of the secretary) to make the vote secret using > > constitution section 5.1 (3). > > I would like to state that I disagree with retroactively making a public > vote private. I voted with the assumption this would be a public vote > and as such, as is common on Debian GRs, I have already published my > vote. > > It was very clear when the vote was called that this would be a public > vote. At that point, a number of people had already received significant > harassment, so I don't believe this is a new concern. > > To reduce harassment, we could possibly release the tally at a later > date, rather than immediately; say, no sooner than 3 months but no later > than one year. > > I do not support making the vote private, and I do not want it to seem > like that there is consensus that it should be. If the concern is "the > entire world", I would be okay with the tally being published > internally. > > Thanks Sam for raising this. After a careful thinking, I agree with Elena's opinion and would rather not make the vote private while it already has started. Of course I won't make a mess of if it becomes private/secret. But I think it is not the best course of action. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Please let this thread go extinct.
Le vendredi 09 avril 2021 à 10:08:07+0900, Norbert Preining a écrit : > > Please let this thread go extinct. > > Isn't it easy to try to make a thread go extinct when the perpetrator is > on "your side", while writing again and again when it is the other way > round. Very impressed by your "fairness" and "inclusiveness". Hi Norbert, Contrary to yours, I actually see Ulrike's reply as applying to everyone, and therefore, of interest. Could you refrain from spiling oil on ashes next time, please? I was happy to see that you were able to manage your frustration to not add up to the situation, and now I'm a sad panda. Thanks. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal to take the discussion elsewhere Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le 6 avril 2021 12:50:59 GMT+02:00, Ulrike Uhlig a écrit : >Hi peb, > >I think it's time to stop this thread here and now. > >If people want to discuss factually, and empathically if it's helpful >for the project to make certain lists read-only for non Debian members, >I think that's a valuable discussion to have, but not here (better on >-private or on -project). > >Yes, there are multiple things on this entire mailing list that me too, >I would like to reply to, but I have other things to do and it will just >end up in more and more and more emails with a less and less and less >friendly tone - and no actual outcomes that will make the project >progress and grow. Maybe those would be desirable goals to keep in mind >when posting. > >Thanks, >Ulrike > Hey Ulrike, I don't have the impression that my way of expressing myself became less friendly over the time but I could be wrong. If so please don't hesitate to tell me, maybe privately. But I understand and agree with your point : we indeed have better places to discuss that. And actually it can wait for the RMS GR to be over and the tension having lowered. Sorry for the noise and for reaching out ! :) Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 13:19:49-0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > Even though it's hard and can be tiresome to many of us (and maybe > > drives some away), as long as possible, I'd like the majority of our > > lists to stay open to all people willing to express something. > > > Blocking potentially relevant comments from non contributors because > > some trolls are trying to wreck havoc is giving them too much importance > > and therefore giving them an easy victory. > > Can you point to an example of a post you consider actually (not "possibly") > relevant from a non Debian voter to debian-vote in the past 2 years? 92221074-9ef0-bb74-e6d5-989b09f9e...@gmail.com > Why should we allow third parties to lobby Debian electors using our mailing > list infrastructure? Well, some of us are using GitHub as a way to sign letters to support or denounce RMS' appointment at the board of the FSF. So I guess it'd be curious to be shocked that others' emit opinion on what we do or say. And as why we would let them do it there, I'd say it makes things easier for us, except if you want them to post on debian.community, github, or wherever the frack they want? > > And, despite what I personally think, a non-contributor calling the RMS > > vote a "witch hunt" is not necessarily a troll. > > I never used the word "troll", which for me has a very specific meaning > grounded in its historical usage in online communities. I never said you did use that word. > I referred to them as "outside agitators", which I believe they are - > whether or not a particular individual's intention is to derail the > discussion, it is certainly their intention to influence the outcome > of Debian's decision process according to their own interests, whether > or not those align with the interests of the Debian voters as a > democratic body. Man, why would be so edgy about others trying to express their opinion on what we do if we're so keen on having the project express an opinion about what others do? -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: re. RMS
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 16:04:58+0200, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 4/5/21 3:29 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Given that Friday was Autism Awareness Day, it might be worth noting > > that RMS is clearly "on the spectrum" - and well known since the days he > > slept in his office at MIT (my student days). > > > > Why is it that nobody ever gives him any leeway for that? > > Without expressing myself about one side or another, or even not > expressing myself about RMS case (ie: if he's an autistic person or not) > autism is a mental disease. Putting someone with a mental disease in > charge is not exactly a good idea. I am not sure to agree with your last sentence. Of course, some pathologies may prevent someone to be able to lead a group/activities, but it's not something I'd state as generally as you tend to do. Whether RMS has any neuroatypical condition and whether or not it should give him lenience and/or preventing him from leading the FSF is paths I won't go along, as I am no doctor and have no expertise on these matters. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 16:37:15-0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-03-30 at 12:18 +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > > certain agenda on this list. > > > Welcome to Debian. > > People are free to express their opinion, even if they are not owning > > an @debian.org email address. And that is actually a very good thing. > > The interested reader is able to filter messages and maybe maintain a > > list of people to ignore if needed. It might be annoying for you, but > > free speech is not always fun. > > People are free to express their opinion. That does not mean the Debian > Project is obligated to provide a platform for those opinions on the > debian-vote mailing list, which exists to facilitate discussions among > voting members of the Debian Project regarding matters that will be voted > on. > > Non-voting posters to debian-vote are almost exclusively outside agitators > and there's no reason subscribing to debian-vote should mean receiving their > bullshit in our mailboxes. Even though it's hard and can be tiresome to many of us (and maybe drives some away), as long as possible, I'd like the majority of our lists to stay open to all people willing to express something. Blocking potentially relevant comments from non contributors because some trolls are trying to wreck havoc is giving them too much importance and therefore giving them an easy victory. And, despite what I personally think, a non-contributor calling the RMS vote a "witch hunt" is not necessarily a troll. An angry person, surely. But being angry and being a troll are two orthogonal things. That's my two cents, and I'm no one to decide, of course. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What does FD Mean
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 14:07:13+0200, Marc Haber a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > > Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific > > deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting > > system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution) > > each with its own criteria and threshold and (due to Arrow's Theorem) > > unavoidable flaws, and every feature of this sort increases the > > system's attack surface to both strategic voting and to just plain > > doing the wrong thing given honest votes. Moving FD around in the > > ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott. > > I have been a DD for nearly 20 years and I have not yet understood how > we vote. Before I joined Debian, I thought that the way Germany votes > for the Bundestag is a complex method. > > Greetings It's probably because I'm a mathematician, but I really enjoy our voting system, despite it also having flaws. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What does FD Mean
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 21:49:01+0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along > > with FD. It'd probably help. > > FD effectively is the same as "none of the above". > > You might believe that the subject is stupid and that the horse is dead > and we shop stop flogging it, but the fact that we got it to a vote in > the first place proves that there are people who disagree with you, and > they will translate NOTA winning into "we haven't found the right answer > yet, so let's try this again, for real this time". > > That's further discussion, just under a different name. I'd rather have > an option that is honest with everyone and declares what will in effect > happen. > > If you want an option that says "no, not now, not ever", you need to put > it on the ballot. To me there is a big difference in theory and semantically, but I agree that practically these are the same. IMHO, "None of the Above" => all ballot options are discarded. From there, either people want to keep discussing the matter and new ballot options should be proposed, or the GR becomes moot. FD => hey, for now people are not convinced enough to vote, let's redo a X weeks discussion. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader election 2021: both candidates are from cancel mob
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 21:33:57+1000, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > On Sunday, 4 April 2021 9:49:57 AM AEST Debian Project Secretary - Kurt > Roeckx wrote: > > [ ] Choice 1: Jonathan Carter > > [ ] Choice 2: Sruthi Chandran > > FYI, both cancel mob candidates signed anti-RMS statement: > > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md FYI, I mailed community@ about the despicable behaviour you are showing right now. While I'd never have done that during the discussion period, because I hold essential that one can express their opinion, the discussion periods are over, and the votes have started. Your mails are creating unacceptable pressure on other voters, and shows a poor respect for the democratic processes we have established. Votes are personal and never should be subject to any pressure. And to be clear, if any person voting against RMS were to do as you just did I'd mail community the same way and call out their behaviour the same way. Not only do you have to stop that, but I'd seriously reflect on myself if I were you. Don't even bother to reply, I'll ignore you until the end of both votes. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: please vote responsibly
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 21:27:28+1000, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > On Sunday, 4 April 2021 9:50:01 AM AEST Debian Project Secretary - Kurt > Roeckx wrote: > > This is the first call for votes on the General Resolution about > > a statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board. > > I urge everybody to vote responsibly and thoughtfully. Indeed. > Cancel mob can never be satisfied and, if encouraged, they will demand > more sacrifices soon. How could you consider that you are actually asking anyone to vote responsibly when you are trying to present them with the idea that voting options you dislike is not responsible? Your sense of democracy raises questions. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: REPOST, SIGNED: Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 5
Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 17:38:17+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > Short and simple: > > > > TEXT OF OPTION 5 > > > > > > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against > > Richard > > Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the > > Free Software Foundation. > > Someone please propose what the name of the option on the ballot > should be, and where I should put it in the order. Move choice 7 to 8 and put it seven. [ ] Choice 7: Rejecting and denouncing a witch-hunt against RMS. (maybe Craig has a better idea) -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le samedi 03 avril 2021 à 15:41:43+0200, Milan Zamazal a écrit : > >>>>> "SM" == Steve McIntyre writes: > > SM> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:26:56PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > >> On Friday, 2 April 2021 11:09:42 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >>> Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful > >>> theoretical > > >>> idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a > >>> miserable fuckup in the end. > >>> > >>> I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see > >>> a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would > >>> want to be leaders in such regimes. > >>> > >>> I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. > >> > >> What a nasty disgraceful style of debating you have, Pierre. > > SM> You might disagree with him, but please stop attacking the > SM> person. It's not necessary and only lowers the tone of debate. > > Yes, please. > > >> You understood very well what I'm saying and I'm is not > >> confirming your point. Communism is a bad ideology that does not > >> work (and could not work even in theory) - that's why it should > >> be "cancelled". Free speech is a beautiful working practice but > >> it is in the way of terrible ideas and that's why they want to > >> "cancel" free speech. > > SM> And other people disagree with you on those points. Please > SM> accept that and leave it there? > > Please note that some of us who suffered from communism and got both > theoretical and practical training in marxism-leninism may be quite Theoretical, with small "reviews" from the party. Which means not theoretically accurate at all. > sensitive to claims that communism was a beautiful theoretical idea or > putting some kind of equations between communism and freedom of speech. > I had to hold off myself to not respond to those claims, which were not > helpful and the intended points could be illustrated in better ways. > > Regards, I explained in what way I compare both. You may consider it was not the best way to illustrate my point and I'm eager to take that remark, but this connection is not, /per se/, absurd. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: What does FD Mean
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 16:57:28-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : > >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes: > > Mathias> I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD > Mathias> means/meant "preserve status quo"? For me voting this > Mathias> option definitely should mean that further discussion on > Mathias> the topic is needed. > > > So, that is the denotation--that's what it literally means. > In cases where things are thoroughly discussed to death, especially > where it appears like all the options are on the table, it may well be > that there is not momentum for further discussion, and FD acts a lot > more like "no". > It's a kind of no that allows someone to try and find a future option. > It's more like "no not this moment," than "no and it would be rude to > try and discuss more." > > But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option B FD, > FD probably does map to no fairly well. > > In this situation, I think we'd have to look for the spread of votes. > FD winning would probably either mean that we actually need to have > further discussion (if a majority of people seemed to prefer one of the > options to others, even though they ranked it below FD), or the project > is too split to decide (if there were major splits below FD). > > In the first situation, I'd interpret it to mean that there was one > direction that most people tended toward but that the specific option > presented was not good enough. > And so if there were energy, it would make sense to refine that option. > > But in the second situation where there were significant splits in > support below FD, probably we ought conclude we don't have support for a > common direction. > > So, yeah, FD is complicated:-) I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along with FD. It'd probably help. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 21:48:53-0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz a écrit : > On 2021-04-01 9:01 p.m., Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > defeat communism and prevent it from raising > > its ugly head again. > > Option 6: > > "Debian will fight hard to defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again, whatever this GR is about". > > Come on folks, we can do better than that! Seconded. -- Could you sign your mail please? I'd like this option in the ballot to vote for it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Nuance Regarding RMS
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 17:47:08+0300, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > Hi Barak, > > thanks a lot for this nuanced view. > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:51:59AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > >... > > He’s remarkably stubborn in technical matters even when outside his > > domain of expertise and completely wrong. > >... > > The traits that make RMS appear awkward are the same that made him > create the GNU project and the FSF, and without RMS being the way > he is Debian would not exist. Should it be true, I still don't see how this should excuse him for his behaviour. Past great actions are not any immunity totem for bad shit we do. The same as when one tries to improve they tend to ask people forgetting about their former bad shit. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 19:26:06+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:15:32PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > Phil Morrell writes: > > > > > > > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion > > > > > period > > > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being > > > > > pragmatic > > > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting > > > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration? > > > > > > > > Debian constitution A.2: > > > > > > > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a > > > >vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has > > > >elapsed. > > > > > > > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on > > > > that > > > >resolution and all related amendments. > > > > > > > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion > > > > period. Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for > > > > it. > > > > > > There is also this in 4.2: > > > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up > > >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting > > >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. > > > > > > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week. > > > The discussion period is over when a vote is called. > > > > Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2: > > > > 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal > > amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no > > amendments have been proposed and accepted. > > > > So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,, > > we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for. > > > > Am I wrong? > > This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and > it's something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are > used in conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix > this. > > In A.1. there is: > 2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in >which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to >match. > 3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of >the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer >of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and > will be voted on. > > It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was > accepted. Ah I see! Thanks for this. I think your interpretation is the most relevant one for now but indeed there is some place here for improvements. I intend to propose a Constitution change taking into account the secret vote question and that. But I won't propose anything until: 1. The DPL election is over 2. The current Resolution about RMS is over. Cheers. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Phil Morrell writes: > > > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration? > > > > Debian constitution A.2: > > > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a > >vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has > >elapsed. > > > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that > >resolution and all related amendments. > > > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion > > period. Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for > > it. > > There is also this in 4.2: > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up >to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting >vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. > > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week. > The discussion period is over when a vote is called. Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2: 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted. So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,, we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for. Am I wrong? -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 12:01:39+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > On Thursday, 1 April 2021 7:56:12 PM AEDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas > > Humans ever created. So is Communism. > > Communism (i.e. fascism + marxism) is an ultimate "cancel culture" that > terminated at least 100 million lives in 20th century. > Communism can not tolerate criticism and that's why communism is > incompatible with free speech. > > We need free speech to defeat communism and prevent it from raising > its ugly head again. Thanks for arguing for my point: Communism was a beautiful theoretical idea which was implemented by humans and therefore was a miserable fuckup in the end. I still think the concept is really interesting, but I can't see a working implementation as soon as there are humans who would want to be leaders in such regimes. I don't see a connection with free speech here, anyway. With best regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 10:18:08-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:59 AM Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > I could move to voting software like Belenios > > Moving to new software without preparation or a chance to practice > could discourage centrist voters—i.e. those who care least but provide > the gravity to hold the project together. > > It could perhaps harm the vote's legitimacy, especially in view of the > perceived rush and the already abbreviated discussion period. I'm pretty sure the idea is not to move right now. Apart from that, Belenios is starting to be considered as reliable. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Forgot to reply to that, wich is actually super important. Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 18:57:12+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:50:15PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > The first option is one option, the others are different and less > > strong. Having strong options in a GR doesn't turn the whole GR in a > > blackmail > > I would disagree. Especially, given that the first attempt to > "sign on behalf of the Debian" - was without a GR at all. This is not at all what happened. Someone asked if we were willing to share a thought on this and who could bear it. Almost immediately, almost all replies were "this should go through a GR, because no part of the Consitution grants noone with the right to make such a statement". There was no attempt to skip any process. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Secret ballot and RMS Resolution
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 19:04:41+0300, Andrei POPESCU a écrit : > On Jo, 01 apr 21, 17:00:47, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > > This would be a vote I would also like to see as secret. The > > constitution says: > > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and > >results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote > >the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting period > >is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the Project > >Leader. > > > > While for DPL election it says: > > 5. The next two weeks are the polling period during which Developers > >may cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept > >secret, even after the election is finished. > > > > You could say that "all the votes cast" could mean what was voted, > > now who voted what, but I think that conflicts with the intention > > of the text. > > How about making the votes available to Debian Members only? > > Kind regards, One could also fear that Debian Members would harrass them because they voted X. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 18:57:12+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:50:15PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > The first option is one option, the others are different and less > > strong. Having strong options in a GR doesn't turn the whole GR in a > > blackmail > > I would disagree. Especially, given that the first attempt to > "sign on behalf of the Debian" - was without a GR at all. > > > And it's the flaw in your train of thought : to believe that I'm > > defending anyone specific or a crusade. > > > > I actually never say anything about "RMS is transphobic". > > That was part of his charges in https://rms-open-letter.github.io/ > The second sentence. Have you read me tell anywhere that I agree with this letter or that I'll vote for "Choice 1"? I'm pretty sure nope, because I do not think that and I am confident I never said that. > Fine, if you disagree with this, that wasn't clear for me. I did not say I disagree. I said that I made no statement of the sorts, mostly because I did not look into any archive to see whether or not he had transphobic judgements. > What was: you did reject entire opinion, referenced above, based on some > random part of it. That's a very biased approach. (Especially, > given that the mentioned person may be an expert in field of > feelings of trans people. But not a famous conspiracy theorist.) I am sorry but I can't and won't give any sort of credit to an article using conspirationist mechanism at the bare beginning without any concrete evidence to back these conspirationnist allegations. > That's why I have doubts, that supporters of the rms-open-letter in > the Debian do really care about feelings of people they pretend to > defend from dr horrible (also known as RMS). Should I give credit to one trans person saying RMS isn't having transphobic behaviours or ideas or should I give credit to many people including some trans saying that he does? -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 10:46:16-0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:39:05PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > Your statement tends to show likewise. My guess is that you tend to also > > look for the bad thing that is neither written or implied. > > > I was not looking for anything. The responses simply stood out as quite > possibly threatening, especially to someone who has felt hurt in a > particular instance as this. I agree it could be seen as threatening, but it was motivated by a reply I consider really inappropriate. When someone asks me to stop doing something, I either state clearly that I refuse for $reason, or I agree and stop. Replying "Or?" in a provocative manner is not ok. Anyway, my point is that we should avoid to consider that any request like that is a threat. > No matter, I'll discontinue my participation. Perhaps others will try > to help. > > I would make to you the same suggestion I made to Sergey: perhaps leave > the thread alone and enjoy your weekend. > > Regards, It's plausible that I'll stop sooner rather than later. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 16:58:25+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:38:03PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > You are systematically telling "i don't care" to what we say > > That's lie, I've not ignored your arguments so far. If you say so > > deciding that this is a blackmail and smearing campaign. > > I'd explained this in details. In case of doubts: it may be a > good campaign (e.g. I may be wrong and RMS is horrible) - but it's > a blackmail (i.e. the first option) as it's now. The first option is one option, the others are different and less strong. Having strong options in a GR doesn't turn the whole GR in a blackmail, and as you pretend to know how Debian works, I can only assume that you are perfectly aware of it. Which makes me wonder what goal you pursue trying to predent that this GR is a smearing/blackmail campaign. > > I stand my point, this "letter" is pure complotist BS. > > Sure. As I quoted before, it's not "yours" trans) > > You even don't care about opinions of people you pretend to defend > in your crusade... And it's the flaw in your train of thought : to believe that I'm defending anyone specific or a crusade. I actually never say anything about "RMS is transphobic". I said "RMS behaviour towards women and statements regarding child abuse, and the Epstein case are bad". You are the one bringing trans people in the thread we are uselessly having since the beginning. And, last but not least, I don't know the writer of the letter you refer to, I don't know if they are or are not trans, and whether they are or not doesn't mean they can't write any bullshit. Let's make a clear statement here : there are bullshitters and douchebags in all group of people. You can be a white cisgender heterosexual male and be a pure douchebag. You can be transgender person and be a pure douchebag. You can be a woman and be a pure douchebag. You can be a person of color and be a pure douchebag. You can be homosexual/pansexual/bisexual/whateversexual and be a pure douchebag. You can be any combination of the previously mentioned statuses and be a pure douchebag. And even if you are, this doesn't mean that the other people sharing an attribute or status with you also are douchebags. The reciprocal statement is also true, you can be whatever and not a douchebag. > > Debian produces the same free OS. > > Well, I'm still trying to hear users voice. For me, it seems they > may disagree with you. Your interpretation of [mostly silence] is quite enlightening. And I still don't see the point with the OS. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 09:38:58-0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:15:08PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 08:40:26-0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit : > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:58:49PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 12:11:18+0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 10:40:35AM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > > >Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 03:52:23+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > > > > >> > Please stop now. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Or?... > > > > > > > > > > > >Actually we could ask you to be banned from Debian lists, but here I > > > > > >assume it was merely a request. > > > > > > > > > > Nod, that's exactly what it was. Maybe polite requests aren't > > > > > effective enough for some people. > > > > > > > > Some people tend to only see coercion when one asks them something > > > > strongly. > > > > > > > > I guess it's because they are keen on having conflicts and fights > > > > instead of trying to remain on a civilized terrain. > > > > > > > So, then is everybody always wrong? > > > > > > Participants on Debian mailing lists calling for civility have been > > > accused of sealioning [0] (or similar bad-faith) not that long ago. > > > > > > Either: (a) everybody is expected to remain civil and act accordingly, > > > or, (b) everybody is allowed to escalate according to their own view of > > > the situation or their own personal feelings (e.g., frustration, > > > perceived opression, etc.). > > > > > > The situation where some are allowed or even encouraged to escalate > > > because they are expressing a "favored" or "right" opinion and others > > > are specifically targeted and decried for escalating (or even simply > > > calling for civility) because they are expressing a "disfavored" or > > > "wrong" opinion is a literal double-standard. We should be above that. > > > > My point is "when one asks another to stop something", it's not > > necessarily with a "or I'll slap you", "or I'll have you banned" or > > whatever you wanna think about. That's all. > > > "Please stop now" is a perfectly reasonable request (especially in this > case where Sergey persists in being difficult). "Please stop now, or I > will have you banned" is a threat, which creates a threatening > environment for the person, and which, incidentally, goes against the > code of conduct. Firstly, the threat of resorting to "legal means" to get something stopped is not considered as illegal, and I'm not sure it's against the CoC. The principle is to state that an unacceptable behaviour can lead to consequences. But here, no one said "please stop or we call the list police". Steve asked him to stop, period. And Sergey's reply was "Or?". Let alone the childish reply, the "Or" implies that he considers that this was a demand with atrocious consequences to suffer if he did not abide, while here it was a mere request. Your statement tends to show likewise. My guess is that you tend to also look for the bad thing that is neither written or implied. > Cetainly, we must have a way to address situations like this without > allowing them to create a toxic environment for everyone else and also > without creating a threatening environment for the individual creating > the potential disruption. In fact, this is the principal purpose of the > community team, as I understand it. Not being confident in my own > ability to properly deal with a situation like "communicate a 'please > stop this or else' in a non-threatening way", I would involve the > community team. Steve being part of that team, I think him asking to "stop" was quite fine and adapted. That being said, the way to address the situation is, at a last resort, asking for a ban from the lists. But it's a last resort, and I'd rather not consider it as an easy way to get some rest. > > I don't see how your answer is relevant to that. > > > > Regarding your last paragraph, it seems to me that many things you state > > here are subjective. When people are freewheeling they get remarks > > wherever they come from. But indeed, when some people express ideas > > against Debian's CoC, the reaction is stronger. This is not a double > >
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 16:24:10+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > You're making a good cause to make the lists read-only for non-members > > I'm trying to argue my position, instead of long reasonings about > feelings of my opponents and so on. Is that wrong for the Debian now? You are systematically telling "i don't care" to what we say and deciding that this is a blackmail and smearing campaign. You're not trying to argue anything, you're just emulating a (pretty convincing fake) kid doing a tantrum. > > Maybe some wording somewhere is strong > > It doesn't matter. The message is clear: do what we want or go out. > > > Yet you miss the point that he is shitty towards women > > Not. It's you, will miss that point next time, if woman > makes a similar support letter. > > Why? Because it's how you analyze counter-arguments. > (https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2021/03/msg00412.html - a good > example.) I stand my point, this "letter" is pure complotist BS. > > I joined Debian because it is inclusive > > The original goal of the Debian was not being inclusive, > but a free OS. That's all debian users still expect from the project. Debian produces the same free OS. Debian as a Community is more than the OS, and people are coming there for reasons of their own. Whatever happens to the FSF/RMS GR, we will keep producing the same OS, and the anti-RMS letter won't be our next wallpaper in it. Please stop trying to mix topics. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 08:40:26-0400, Roberto C. Sánchez a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:58:49PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 12:11:18+0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 10:40:35AM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > >Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 03:52:23+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > > >> > Please stop now. > > > >> > > > >> Or?... > > > > > > > >Actually we could ask you to be banned from Debian lists, but here I > > > >assume it was merely a request. > > > > > > Nod, that's exactly what it was. Maybe polite requests aren't > > > effective enough for some people. > > > > Some people tend to only see coercion when one asks them something > > strongly. > > > > I guess it's because they are keen on having conflicts and fights > > instead of trying to remain on a civilized terrain. > > > So, then is everybody always wrong? > > Participants on Debian mailing lists calling for civility have been > accused of sealioning [0] (or similar bad-faith) not that long ago. > > Either: (a) everybody is expected to remain civil and act accordingly, > or, (b) everybody is allowed to escalate according to their own view of > the situation or their own personal feelings (e.g., frustration, > perceived opression, etc.). > > The situation where some are allowed or even encouraged to escalate > because they are expressing a "favored" or "right" opinion and others > are specifically targeted and decried for escalating (or even simply > calling for civility) because they are expressing a "disfavored" or > "wrong" opinion is a literal double-standard. We should be above that. My point is "when one asks another to stop something", it's not necessarily with a "or I'll slap you", "or I'll have you banned" or whatever you wanna think about. That's all. I don't see how your answer is relevant to that. Regarding your last paragraph, it seems to me that many things you state here are subjective. When people are freewheeling they get remarks wherever they come from. But indeed, when some people express ideas against Debian's CoC, the reaction is stronger. This is not a double standard. It's just that there is a ruleset we try to work with, and those going against are more prone to get remarks. What a surprise. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Nuance Regarding RMS
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 11:51:59+0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit : > I can personally vouch for the fact that RMS can be very difficult. He > takes social awkwardness to new heights. He’s remarkably stubborn in > technical matters even when outside his domain of expertise and > completely wrong. He is not a fun house guest. His manners as a dinner > guest are atrocious. He was by far the most logistically problematic > seminar speaker I have ever hosted. He takes umbrage at quite > innocuous colloquial phrasing, and is obstinate about his own > idiosyncratic interpretation of English semantics. He overshares, and > has great difficulty reading others' emotions. > > But he's not transphobic. That accusation is basically scurrilous. At > https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html is an impassioned but well > reasoned (at least in this regard) defense of RMS from a trans woman > he had a big public fight with. “If you actually tell Richard your > preferred pronouns, he’ll use them with you without hesitation. > Several of my friends are trans and also speak to Richard, mostly via > email. He respects their pronouns also.” > > Calling him ablist is similarly unfair. He was defending women’s right > to terminate pregnancies when the fetus has a condition like trisomy > 21. Whatever your views are on the underlying political question, to > twist that as ablist is quite a stretch. > > RMS is not violent. > > He's weird with everyone, which do I think has, in general, a > disproportionate effect on women. As does his poor personal hygiene. > He had a mattress in his office at MIT because he was basically living > there. That might give lots of people squicky feelings, but would have > a disproportionate effect on women. He makes unwelcome sexual > overtures to women, but backs off when turned down (with perhaps > isolated exceptions decades ago). That's totally inappropriate > behaviour. He seems unable to sense when someone finds him repellent. > > Basically, he’s super creepy and unpleasant. He picks his feet and > eats it while delivering seminars. > > Nina Paley hosted him in her apartment in New York on a number of > occasions, and had a similar read. > > I'm not sure he'd be an ideal board member, but that’s a practical > rather than ethical consideration, and surely best left to the > judgement of the individual organization. > > What’s problematic to me about this whole “Cancel RMS” business is the > lack of nuance. He’s clearly not neurotypical in a way that makes him > very difficult to deal with. He doesn’t make appropriate eye contact. > He’s strange in ways that I think, on average, affects women more than > men. But should we bully or ostracise him for that? I think we should > try to develop coping strategies for both him and people who want or > need to deal with him. That’s actually supporting and accommodating > diversity. And it’s hard! We should seek ways to leverage his > strengths, which are considerable. Of course, that assumes lack of > malice, which I think is the case with RMS. He’s not malicious. He > really wants to connect, but he’s utterly unable to. He’s weird and > clueless. And he’s obsessed with software freedom. Thanks for this enlightening text Barak and for sharing your feelings on this. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 12:11:18+0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 10:40:35AM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 03:52:23+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > >> > Please stop now. > >> > >> Or?... > > > >Actually we could ask you to be banned from Debian lists, but here I > >assume it was merely a request. > > Nod, that's exactly what it was. Maybe polite requests aren't > effective enough for some people. Some people tend to only see coercion when one asks them something strongly. I guess it's because they are keen on having conflicts and fights instead of trying to remain on a civilized terrain. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 09:12:24+1100, Dmitry Smirnov a écrit : > On Wednesday, 24 March 2021 11:38:25 PM AEDT Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Freedom of speech does *not* mean freedom from consequences. > > Here is a good reply to this very statement: > > ~~~ > "Freedom of speech is supposed to imply freedom from quite a wide range > of possible consequences; mostly consequences like fines or incarceration, > but the spirit of it applies more broadly than that. If I were to say that > [whoever] is free to speak, but I wouldn’t guarantee there would be no > consequences for that speech, wouldn’t it be fair to interpret my words > as a veiled threat? > > The only valid “consequences” for an act of free speech is a solid rebuttal. > > If you think otherwise, then I suggest that you haven’t quite grasped the > point of the concept, or that you simply have tyrannical tendencies > (as many do). > ~~~ > > Taken from the following conversation: Freedom of speech is one of the theoretically most beautiful ideas Humans ever created. So is Communism. The thing is, as soon as there are humans in the equation, both these ideas become a huge truckload of mess, violence, hatred and sorrow. Trying to grab it as a cane in all discussions is to me a proof of lack of sensible arguments. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Announcing new decision making procedures for Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 00:52:53+0200, Enrico Zini a écrit : > Hello Debian Members, > > For some time, we have been having systemic issues that make GR > discussions painful. GRs themselves shouldn't be painful, and don't need > to be. Having a chilling effect to using GRs hurts Debian, and as a > project we need a way to poll for consensus on project choices and > directions more often than not. > > To overcome the current problems with GR discussions, we introduce a > replacement weighted democratic system. The new procedure is this: > > * A developer proposes an issue with a signed message on >debian-vote@lists.debian.org . > > * Anyone can express their consent or dissent by replying to the >message. > > * When the discussion eventually dies down, the Debian Secretary will >review all messages and pronounce the winner. > > > This method makes the fair assumption that the energy spent in writing > messages to the discussion is related to the amount of insight a person > has on an issue, and how much they care about it. In particular: > > * The more messages a person writes, the more the person cares, and the >more their opinion will be taken into account: people who only write >every once in a while, clearly don't think the issue is important >enough to deserve their real effort. > > * The more strongly worded replies are, the more the person cares, and >the more their opinion will be taken into account: people who waste >time with long, polite, well reasoned messages, clearly didn't care >enough to get emotional about an issue. > > * The longer a person keeps writing, the more the person cares, and the >more their opinion will be taken into account: people who give up, >clearly didn't care enough to make themselves heard. > > To avoid confusion, we'll maintain the same acronym as before. The new > system will be called Debian Grandiose Reflection. > > The first GR using this scheme will concern the introduction of this > voting scheme for the future. I'm saddened that my proposal for a fist fight in a circular room filled with mud got ignored. Therefore, I ask for support for a GR that would change the GR decision making process to have the fist fight thingy implemented. Let's fists (or covid) decide who's right. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 04:09:58+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 06:24:52PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you still are on a debian > > mailing list while you clearly stated you wanted to sever your ties with > > Debian. > > And what's wrong? Anyone can participate in the discussion, isn't? Oh sure, and no one forbade you to do so. But as you came make a tantrum on debian-devel some days ago about this telling you wanted to orphan all your packages and have nothing more to do with Debian, I'm reminding you of your wishes, because it's essential to have our needs satisfied to be happy. > One of "choices" - is a real blackmail for all FOSS communities: ban > rms or we will not interact with you. That affects people far outside > Debian, yes. Well, I think you give Debian way too much power. Anyway, I have better things to attend to in my daily life. As you seem stuck on your ideas, I'll leave you to these. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le jeudi 01 avril 2021 à 03:52:23+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > Please stop now. > > Or?... Actually we could ask you to be banned from Debian lists, but here I assume it was merely a request. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 18:52:49+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > I stopped reading after "Thought Criminal" ... > > Honestly, do what you want, but Trumpist > > "I decide who is a jew in the airforce" (c) > > This trans is a wrong trans, isn't? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you still are on a debian mailing list while you clearly stated you wanted to sever your ties with Debian. As it seems to still hurt you, I can't do more than suggest you to stop reading what we post here and to stop replying. I hope you understand my concern here is your well-being. Bests, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 16:41:50+0200, Pasha a écrit : > On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 11:59 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote: > > > > Sergey B Kirpichev writes: > > > > > Obviously, you want to turn the Debian into something "more than > > > that". But have you fixed all bugs in the packages you do > > > support?) > > > > Is this how you behave when discussing political matters in general > > too? > > "This one important problem isn't fully resolved, therefore we cannot > > discuss anything else"? Humans, and organizations consisting thereof, > > do > > not work on the basis of a totally ordered list of priorities. > > > > -- Gard > > > > Libreboot explanation can be helpful here: > > https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html I stopped reading after "Thought Criminal", "accused of defending rape in an Orwellian smear campaign" and "orchestrated by mainstream media". Honestly, do what you want, but Trumpist arguments are generally sophisms and therefore not worth a dime of anyone's time. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mercredi 31 mars 2021 à 06:48:45+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > >>>>> On 2021-03-28 20:23:38 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >>>>> Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > > In my previous letter, I’ve presented my general concerns about > the ‘open letter’ that Choice 1 seeks to ratify; irrespective > (more or less) of any specific organization or individual. > Below I hope to clarify my position, as well as attempt to > address some (but by no means all) concerns regarding Richard > Stallman personally. > > I understand that for some of us, the mere suggestion that > Richard Stallman may not be that wrong in certain respects > can be offensive. For that, as well as for any factual mistakes > (corrections welcome) on my part below, I apologize in advance. I'm not part of these people rolling on the floor on the mere idea to have my ideas criticized or contradicted, so please don't bother. :) > >> “We do not condone his actions *and opinions.*” > > >> “There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s *repugnant ideas* and > >> behavior.” > > >> “[…] we will not continue suffering his behavior […] or > >> otherwise holding him *and his hurtful and dangerous ideology* > >> as acceptable.” > > >> Where’s diversity in that? > > > Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending > > these. > > I’m somewhat curious as to how you define ‘dangerous ideas’? > > In all honesty, I’m not sure such a notion has much value; > in part because for every few persons agreeing, there probably > will be a few more /millions/ to disagree. And in part because > a lot of things we now take for granted (such as equality) were > once considered ‘dangerous ideas,’ and conversely, some of the > things that were commonplace in the past (such as slavery) are > now considered ‘dangerous ideas.’ > > Is the idea of a violent overthrow of a government a dangerous > one? Yet this is how a number of extant goverments came to be. > (To paraphrase Harry Harrison’s protagonist Jason dinAlt.) > > Add to that that such notions tend to vary across cultures and > countries. > > Don’t get me wrong: I do /not/ consider all ideas to be ‘equal.’ > But I find it a slippery slope when we start talking about which > views can be held and expressed (or ‘defended’), and which cannot. > > Other than that, I believe that if you witness actual criminal > behavior (which is to say, a dangerous person /acting/ on his or > her dangerous views), you should report it to the relevant > authorities. Certainly, on occasion the law violated will be > unjust in itself, but I think it’s generally better for the > society at large to have a public trial, and perhaps conviction > (and a posthumous public apology from the government half a > century later, as in [1]); than to have laws that are applied > inconsistently (which is to say, selectively.) > > [1] http://theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing Bad, dangerous, et al, are subjective notions which imply a position in time and a society to refer to. To me an idea is dangerous if it could lead some people to become violent toward others in the name of such an idea, or justify their crimes with these. To me, defending or trying to diminish the impact of child abuse is dangerous. Defending or trying to diminish the impact of domestic violence is dangerous. Defending or trying to diminish the impact of racism is dangerous. Because this is what makes some people think it's legitimate to use violence. > > For the sake of clarity, I’m talking about his comments on the > > Epstein thing, > > Like, for example, condemning coercion and sexual trafficking? > (Very much in line with his general views on coercion and > other violations of personal freedom.) I remember him trying to find excuses to his friend having profitted from a child Epstein put him in relation with. > > like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay > > This indeed was his view which he expressed back in 2006. > He has since changed his mind [2]. > > [2] > http://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong) Well, at least that. Thanks for the pointer. > > because they were “entirely willing”, > > An acquaintance of mine, a Russian Orthodox priest, used to say > (in good humor) that Paul the Apostle advocated for a caref
Re: Amendment to RMS/FSF GR: Option 4, assert the need to learn and grow from recent events
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 23:28:47+0100, Jonathan Wiltshire a écrit : > This is a late amendment proposal which I hope seconders will feel able to > support in time for it to make the ballot paper. It is late because I feel > strongly that events in the past few days [1] [2] [3] [4] risk overtaking > this GR; Debian already has enough criticism for being slow to respond, and > I want to head off anything which might reinforce that view. > > 1: https://www.fsf.org/news/preliminary-board-statement-on-fsf-governance > 2: https://www.fsf.org/news/update-on-work-to-improve-governance-at-the-fsf > 3: > https://www.fsf.org/news/welcoming-ian-kelling-to-staff-seat-on-fsfs-board-of-directors > 4: > https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-from-the-fsf-board-of-directors-meeting-on-march-29-2021 > > I acknowledge that this text is not worded so strongly as many people would > like it to be. However, I don't believe in fueling fires and I would like > to see Debian calling for overhaul of FSF governance without joining any > lynch mobs. There are competing extreme opinions at the moment, and I'm > hoping this is a text on which we can have broader agreement. > > CHOICE TEXT FOLLOWS: > > This is a position statement of the Debian Developers in accordance with > our constitution, section 4.1.5. > > The Developers firmly believe that leaders in any prominent organisation > are, and should be, held to the highest standards of accountability. > > We are disappointed that issues of transparency and accountability in the > governance of the Free Software Foundation have led to unresolved and > serious complaints of impropriety by its founder Richard Stallman over a > number of years whilst in the position of president and as a member of the > board. In particular, we are deeply concerned that the board saw fit to > reinstate him without properly considering the effect of its actions on > those complainants. > > The Developers acknowledge that people make mistakes but believe that where > those people are in leadership positions, they must be held accountable for > their mistakes. We believe that the most important part of making mistakes > is learning from them and changing behaviour. We are most concerned that > Richard and the board have not sufficiently acknowledged or learned from > issues which have affected a large number of people and that Richard > remains a significant influence on both the FSF board and the GNU project. > > We call upon the Free Software Foundation to further steps it has taken in > March 2021 to overhaul governance of the organisation, and to work > tirelessly to ensure its aim is fulfilled. We believe that only through > properly accountable governance can members of an organisation ensure their > voice is heard. The Free Software Foundation must do everything in its > power to protect its staff and members, and the wider community, including > a robust and transparent process for dealing with complaints. > > We urge Richard Stallman and the remaining members of the board which > reinstated him, to consider their positions. > > The Developers are proud that contributors to free software come from all > walks of life and that our diverse experience and opinions are a strength > of software freedom. But we must never cease in our efforts to ensure that > all contributors are treated with respect, and that they feel safe and > secure in our communities - including when we meet in person. > > END CHOICE TEXT Seconded. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 20:27:56+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 07:10:17PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Are you aware that many of those "SJW" have been Debian Members for a very > > long time > > Why not? I do not understand what you mean by "why not?". > > the most technical part of that community? > > That's your imagination, given you already ignored a decent part > of the community. The Debian Members are the most technical part of the Debian Community, whether you like it or not, it's not my imagination. And these "SJW" you refer to are Debian Members and henceforth mostly technical contributors of the project. > > Your opinions are yours, and are not shared by everyone here > > Not true as well. I think there is a misunderstanding of English. Either I failed to express myself correctly or you are failing to understand. Your opinion is not shared by all developers. Some may agree with your opinion but obviously some don't. > > this GR will be a good reality check. > > The outcome doesn't matter, as I said. The Debian project > do political decisions on behalf of it's contributors - that's > a reality. This is now for something different than for a free OS... Despite the many years of contributions you made to Debian, it seems to me that your understanding of the way the Project works is at odd with the reality, so I'll try one last time. The Debian Project will maybe take a political position if the GR outcomes allows it to do so, and if it does so it will take this political position on behalf of itself, with the approval of a "majority" of its voting member having expressed their opinion. And, being a Free Software-made OS doesn't forbid it to be more than that. And using Debian won't mean anything more than before this GR, even if the project were to tell the FSF that it won't work with it anymore and considers RMS as someone who should be removed from there. Because it is our right not to work with people we don't like. As I said, I wish you the best in your future endeavours which will not be around Debian, as far as you've stated previously. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 19:35:05+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > Debian Maintainers and Contributors are indeed not Debian Members and > > it's written to many places. > > For instance... > > https://www.debian.org/intro/people > > --->8- > People: who we are, what we do > Developers and contributors > > Debian is produced by almost a thousand active developers spread around the > world who volunteer in their spare time. Few of the developers have actually > met in person. Communication is done primarily through e-mail (mailing lists > at lists.debian.org) and IRC (#debian channel at irc.debian.org). > > The complete list of official Debian members can be found on nm.debian.org, > where membership is managed. A broader list of Debian contributors can be > found on contributors.debian.org. > ->8--- > > Can you see here a clear distinction: we do political statements for DD > only? Well, as you told me you had the time to learn about Debian ant its ways and presumably you already know the answer to that. > > I wonder if you are feeling angry > > SJW destroyed yet another technical community. Why I should be happy? Are you aware that many of those "SJW" have been Debian Members for a very long time, and are actually the most technical part of that community? Your opinions are yours, and are not shared by everyone here, this GR will be a good reality check. I wish you a rapid recovery: my experience with griefs is that they are not beneficial on the long term. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 12:38:36+0200, Zlatan Todoric a écrit : > Hi, > > On 3/30/21 12:18, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On 29.03.21 20:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > Quoting Ulrike Uhlig (2021-03-29 10:58:13) > > > > Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you? I cannot find your name in the > > > > Debian contributor list. > > > > > > Sorry for my ignorance, but who are you to ask that? I cannot your > > > name > > > in the Debian mailinglist inquisitor list. > > > > Concerning Vote002, we heard from someone in the > > don't-sign-the-letter-camp about certain "events" (that's a quote, not a > > euphemism) in Germany, someone else mentioned a "witch hunt", and now, > > Jonas: the inquisition. w-o-w. > > > > The reality is much simpler than that. > It is. You're calling out people and some have hard time to assume good > faith. Jonas just pulled the same sentiment on you and you feel called out. > > > > People without voting rights repeatedly tried to lobby or push for a > > certain agenda on this list. I'm tired of that and I think we'll all be > > happier when this GR is over. > > Jonas has voting rights, I myself have voting right and together with > Santiago R.R. (another voting member of Debian) drafted and published > another choice on this GR. And I agree with you, I know many of us are > unhappy with the GR entirely and will be much happier when it is over > because we are tired that this is pushed into Debian in such a way. Well, your proposal is still a strong Statement about how Debian should position itself towards the FSF. So in a way, you push less strongly but you still push "this" into Debian. I'll probably vote your amendment or Sruthi's one, but still, I relate to what I interpret as frustration from Ulrike. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Cancel "culture" is a threat to Debian
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 17:31:43+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > > Is it a problem when someone goes and works and pays taxes in a country > > where they're not a citizen? > > Oh, package maintainers are not Debian's citizens... Great idea, just > put this on the top of debian.org to attract new contributors. This > is not transfobic, right? Dear Sergey, Debian Maintainers and Contributors are indeed not Debian Members and it's written to many places. I wonder if you are feeling angry because you have a need for a space where you can express ideas that seem uncompatible with what Debian considers as fine? If so, there are indeed plenty places more fit to your expectations, as you stated in your departure email some days ago. But I would like to tell that we acknowledge your pain and I would like to express that I am personally sad that our expectations are inflicting you such pain. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le mardi 30 mars 2021 à 05:10:59-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 4:46 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that > > their expression should always be free. > > Wow, who would have thought? Totalitarianism returned. Welcome to 1984! [1] > > Please also see "Thought Police". [2] Please remind me how Totalitarism actually came into effect back in those times? Except in the US (where obviously we see how much good it does), some ideas can't be expressed publicly in many western countries and so far they did not fall into your clode-to-Godwin point. Kind regards,, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le lundi 29 mars 2021 à 07:26:24-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit : > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:24 AM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > > Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending > > these. > > Ideas should always be free. That's how I understand diversity. Hi Felix, I agree that ideas should be free. But I disagree if your point is that their expression should always be free. Cheers, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 20:56:26+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Pierre-Elliott Bécue (2021-03-28 20:31:01) > > Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 � 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a �crit�: > > > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > > > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can > > > nitpick that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) > > > agree that the accusations are deliberately harmful but that the > > > harm cannot backfire on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest > > > my case. > > > > Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always > > delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. > > > > That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that > > point that could/should be discussed. > > Text #1 oncludes an accusation. Other proposed texts does not. > > I think the relevant thing to discuss is not if the accusation embedded > in text #1 is warranted, but instead if that accusation is necessary. > Is the accusation needed for that proposal? It seems to me that the > message would be the same with that accusation omitted, but maybe I am > missing something. What reason would you give to ask RMS' removal from the board of the FSF if it were not for his ways of being/behaving and his attitudes? -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 14:04:48+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > My involvement in this subthread was when Molly arguing that the > accusation was not harmful (using other words, yes, and we can nitpick > that if really necessary). You (and others, privately) agree that the > accusations are deliberately harmful but that the harm cannot backfire > on Debian. I have raised my concerns - I rest my case. Accusations are generally harmful, and as accusations are always delibeately made, they indeed tend to be deliberately harmful. That does not mean they are not warranted. And I think it is that point that could/should be discussed. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: opinion on Choice 1
Le dimanche 28 mars 2021 à 15:35:42+, Ivan Shmakov a écrit : > >>>>> On 2021-03-26 15:50:02 +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > >>>>> Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 16:50:06+0300, Sergey B Kirpichev a écrit : > >>>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > [Moving to -vote from -devel; apologies if inappropriate.] > > As an aside, I don’t suppose there can be a more affirmative > option on the ballot, along the lines of reaffirming commitment > to civil liberties and the principles underlying them, and > expressing hope that the changes Free Software Foundation > currently undergoes will resolve standing concerns?… > > […] > > > Well that is the principle of having a community of people with diverse > > opinions. I’m sad to hear that this diversity is the cause of such > > griefs. > > So am I. > > >>> As for RMS, whether one likes him or not, it’s not hard to see his > >>> public communications and see what things he defended. > > >> If someone won’t/can’t distinguish his personal opinions and ones on > >> behalf of FSF stuff — not mine problem. > > > Any organization who keeps at a direction position someone expressing > > controversial or unsane opinions is, in a sense, either ignorant of the > > situation or encouraging it. > > I’m afraid I cannot agree. That is your right. > I believe that everyone, regardless of station or lack thereof, > is entitled to the right to hold any views, and to express the > same without misrepresentation. I believe everyone is entitled > to the protection of said rights by law and relevant authorities; > and the respect of said rights by the society at large. I believe > that in democratic societies, no legal principle, be it right, > freedom, procedure, or other, that is deemed not worthy of respect > by the society at large, has any right to stand, and should be > struck off the books. > > On such a belief, I feel it necessary to point out that Choice 1 > currently on the ballot goes on to not only call into question > someone’s ability to lead, and to criticise the behavior of > the same individual, but also to deny him the right to have his > own opinions and views (emphasis mine): > > “We do not condone his actions *and opinions.*” > > “There has been enough tolerance of RMS’s *repugnant ideas* and > behavior.” > > “[…] we will not continue suffering his behavior […] or > otherwise holding him *and his hurtful and dangerous ideology* > as acceptable.” > > Where’s diversity in that? Diversity is not tolerating dangerous ideas and the persons defending these. For the sake of clarity, I'm talking about his comments on the Epstein thing, like pretending having sex with 14 yo childs is okay because they were "entirely willing", and the possession of pedopornographic images. His attitude towards women, too. Although I'm ill-at-ease with other things he said, like "one should abort if their to-be-born child is likely to have Down's syndrome", I still consider that such personal views are his right and I would not sign a letter asking him out if his words and opinions were limited to these. Because I indeed think that diversity also means accepting that some people think things that I am ill-at-ease with. > By comparison, the mistake of calling (?) FSF to remove him from > the position of the leader of the GNU Project, a position (to the > extent that such a position exists in the first place) that is, > as far as I know, not conferred by FSF, and hence could hardly > be revoked by them (other than by some outright coercive action), > appears rather minor. > > There’re of course other issues with the text. > > Let it be known that it’s not my personal loyalty speaking. > Unless, of course, you consider my dear friends Freedom of > Speech and Freedom of Conscience to be actual persons, in which > case it certainly is. > > As for those who’ve signed the original open letter, and there > are prominent Debian Developers among those, I hope they know > that their action /did/ hurt some of us. I’ve seen people > questioning whether they should continue to associate with > Debian, even as users, going as far as to consider moving off > the entire Debian ecosystem (which is to say, to operating > systems not based on dpkg and APT.) And while I can /and do/ > sympathize, I hereb
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
Le 27 mars 2021 13:55:23 GMT+01:00, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : >On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:27:38PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 12:17:58AM +0530, Sruthi Chandran wrote: >> > > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. >> >> I've changed that to "belatedly". > >The option has been committed, it should be on the website soon. > > >Kurt > I think you forgot my sponsorship on this one. Not that it makes any real difference but maybe it is worth adding. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue From my phone
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 00:09:40+0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >... > > We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on > > what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not* > > in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we > > believe to be bad, wrong and hurtful. It is *entirely* within our > > rights to evaluate people by their words and actions and to decide > > whether we wish to talk or work with them in future. > >... > > You are saying companies should always have the right to fire employees > if they join an union. It *would* if companies were just some things assembled under the freedom of association. BUT, it's not the case as there are hierarchical relationships in these, and they assemble under specific laws and texts. For that reason, more than a century of experience made clear that the right to union is important and the employees joining unions are to be protected. Debian is not a company, and as a private group assembled under the freedom of association, yep, it can have anyone removed from the group. Of course, if it were done based on law-punishable motives, it could probably be a ground for prosecution. But as far as I am aware of, "you're behaving in a way that is not compatible with our code of conduct" or "you are doing harm to the community" is not discrimination and is not forbidden by the law. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Willingness to share a position statement?
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 23:12:45+0100, Gerardo Ballabio a écrit : > Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > That said, let's escalate your example a bit > > "Escalate a bit" is quite an understatement, as you turned it into an > example of criminal behavior. Which makes it irrelevant to the subject > of this discussion, i.e., whether people can be discriminated for > expressing their opinions without violating any laws. Being a douchebag is not something criminal /per se/, and, well, it can be enough to be fired from a job. > The rest of your message is basically a repetition of the concept that > if people do bad things, they should face consequences, which I agree > 100% with. Where we seem to disagree, instead, is whether exercising > the right to free speech is a bad thing. Honestly, exercising it in order to hurt others is a bad thing. One can protect a right and still thing some of its usages are bad. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 22:45:57+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit : > Dear fellow DDs, > > Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :) > > Begin text > > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the > following statement: > > *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board* > > We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of > Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software > Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to > his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. > > One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to > recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our > own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way > Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks > any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply > disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite > no discernible steps were taken > by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past > actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also > disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. > > > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful > message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of > the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control > technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free > Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or > disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or > sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment > that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we > ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be > in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in > it in order to fulfil the movement's mission. > > > That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF > needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their > decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again. > Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to > work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in > the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of > empowering all users to control technology. > > [0] https://twitter.com/fsf/status/1374399897558917128 > > Heavily based on: > > [1] https://fsfe.org/news/2021/news-20210324-01.html > > [2] > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/statement-re-election-richard-stallman-fsf-board > > End of text In case it was not clear: seconded. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Asking DPL to shorten Discussion Period for rms-open-letter
Le samedi 27 mars 2021 à 10:41:57+0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Enrico Zini (2021-03-27 10:08:06) > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:31:28PM -0700, Luke W Faraone wrote: > > > > > Myself, I signed this letter based on both public information and > > > the numerous times I've heard, unprompted, stories from women and > > > female-presenting people who have had uncomfortable / creepy > > > experiences with Stallman, in the Debian / free software community, > > > the MIT community, and elsewhere. > > > > > > I have heard first-hand stories from women who were new to the Free > > > Software movement and, at a conference, were excited to meet its > > > leader -- only to be hit on by Richard and invited back to continue > > > the conversation at a residence. These people did not stay in the > > > Free Software movement, and our community is poorer for it. > > > > > > None of those incidents would have turned into a police report, and > > > I'm not demanding that you rely on it. But it comes up so frequently > > > at conferences, student clubs, and bar chats from so many different > > > people that I have little reason to doubt its veracity. > > > > > > It's also interesting to note that over 12 former FSF staff, who > > > worked directly with Richard, also saw it fit to sign the letter. > > > > This! Thank you! > > > > I have regularly been among people sharing horror stories of what > > happened when they hosted RMS at some event or another. > > > > In my experience there is an unwritten, alternative "RMS Rider", that > > you should know before hosting/handling him, with things like "don't > > you *ever* leave RMS alone with a woman!", "avoid mentioning this list > > of words", "a number of basic expectations of human decency don't > > apply, and you should be prepared for that". > > > > As long as he was in a somewhat official position of guru/leadership, > > I was part of a community that tried its best to *handle* him, and to > > *minimize his damage*. I understand that many people close to him > > tried to talk to him, and that Stallman is about as famous for > > speaking as for not listening. I believe that all this has held Free > > Software back significantly. > > > > We had finally moved on from having a significant amount of the > > community energy spent on *handling Stallman*. And now he's supposed > > to be back "and I'm not planning to resign a second time"? > > > > Stallman can certainly *speak* about Free Software. Stallman cannot > > *lead* the Free Software movement, or any influential part of it. We > > had moved on, and we had mostly gotten away with it[1]. I don't want > > to go back. > > Thanks for your judgements(!), Luke and Enrico. > > For the record, I do not defend actions of RMS. I defend his right to a > fair trial. > > This mailinglist is for dicussing what to put on a ballot. > > I need no further testimonies or evicence that RMS is a monster. > Regardless of the amount and type of proof, Debian should in my opinion > *not* take part in group shaming. And *that* is relevant to discuss on > this mailinglist: What to put on the ballot for the Debian vote. > > The originally proposed text says that RMS has demonstrated that he is > what he is being accused of being. That is a way of turning allegations > into facts - i.e. *judging* - and I worry for Debian officially stating > that the allegations are facts is going too far, and that it is unneded > if what we want is to distance ourselves from a monster. > > Only if we want to punish the monster is it relevant to explicitly judge > the monster. > > It is my understanding that it is illegal for organisations to make such > explicit judgements, which is a reason for us to avoid explicit > judgement, even if that is in fact what we want to do. A fair trial is what you expect from the society when your actions are put under the justice system. Here as a group of people, his trial is mostly what he said publicly and never apologised for. I don't really see why you'd like him to get any sort of """trial""" when he had plenty opportunities to prove himself to have become better. Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Having a "DPL committee"?
Le samedi 20 mars 2021 à 00:44:52+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit : > > On 20/03/21 12:31 am, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > The idea was discussed two years ago. Sam chose a range of people to > > help him with delegations. > > > > Being a DPL is a high-energy thing even when one doesn't try to "lead" > > the project /per se/. > > > > Do you think the Project should consider the opportunity of trying to > > establish more clearly a role of "DPL advisors" who would be identified > > as helpers for the DPL and additional entry points for the > > developers/external people should the need arise? > > > > Cheers! > > > I definitely think we should have a panel of "DPL advisors/helpers" to > help out the DPL. There will definitely be a lot of administrative stuff > that can be delegated to the helpers and DPL can concentrate on other > important activities. > > If I become DPL, this would be one of the first things I would be > working out. Thanks Sruthi for your reply! What is your opinion about Jonathan's reply regarding the fact that working on having adapted teams (CT/Trademark) take part of the load in a way that is not directly tied to the DPL mandate is probably a better schema on the long run? Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Having a "DPL committee"?
Le lundi 22 mars 2021 à 19:30:35+0200, Jonathan Carter a écrit : > On 2021/03/19 21:01, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > The idea was discussed two years ago. Sam chose a range of people to > > help him with delegations. > > It's come up a few times in past platforms and discussions on -vote too! > > > Being a DPL is a high-energy thing even when one doesn't try to "lead" > > the project /per se/. > > > > Do you think the Project should consider the opportunity of trying to > > establish more clearly a role of "DPL advisors" who would be identified > > as helpers for the DPL and additional entry points for the > > developers/external people should the need arise? > > Perhaps a lesser known fact, but the current DPL has access to a channel > where they can contact previous DPLs for some quick advice. I've found > that quite useful in situations where I needed some quick feedback. Now you made me curious. :> > For the rest, I think delegations work great. I think in general, when > DPLs do their job right, then future DPL terms will get gradually > easier. I certainly stand on the shoulders of giants and I've definitely > appreciated some of the earlier work done. Teams like the Trademark Team > and the Community Team catches many mails and issues that the DPL > would've usually had to respond to. My strategy would probably be to > bolster the existing delegation framework instead of setting up a > committee. I'm not completely against a committee per sé either, but I > also think that a single person who can make quick decisions when > necessary works quite well. I would not think to a Committee/Advisory board as something which should prevent the DPL from taking quick decisions but rather a bunch of people the DPL trusts to either give them some tasks to accomplish or be an entry point. That being said, I acknowledge your point that a DPL coming after people having already simmplified the procedures will cope in a better way anyway! > One area where I've felt that it falls short is that it's not fun when I > got busy or would take a holiday. It would be nice if we usually had a > vice-DPL of sorts that could be a backup and could take care of things > when the DPL can't (for whatever reasons). That's something I'd like to > consider if running for another term. I wonder in that case if such a person sould be either: 1. Nominated by the DPL 2. Co-elected (ie voting for a couple of people) 3. Elected separately on the same time frame (but that could lead to issues if the DPL and vice-DPL fail to get along together) Thanks for your reply! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: concern - proprietary software promotion in Debian
Hi, Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 19:29:33+0100, Pasha a écrit : > Hi, > > I saw some people are sending github links to promote their cause. > > github is not a free software. It a proprietary service owned by a > company. > > My question is depending on the side a developer choose he has the > right not to use any proprietary software. right ? Being a Debian Developer does not by any way mean one should or should not use any software, be it proprietary or free. It's just a commitment that our work in Debian will be done with respect to the Debian Social Contract, the DFSG and the Debian Policy. That is all. > I saw in some forums discussin they are using discord beside github. (I > am not 100% sure - because I did not check or read details.) > > If it is true, how is it possible people are using non-free software > and proprietary communication to decide who should be in fsf board or > not ? Achieving perfection before giving any opinion is not something that can work. People using or contributing to the Free Software world should happily be able to give their opinion whatever platform they want to use is up to them. > I feel the developers are supporting this cause are forced to signed up > for proprietary software/service. > > Please, understand this email is about the software/service not the > cause. > I dont want to discuss about your personal opinion here. > > I would be happy to see Debian has some policy for discouraging > proprietary software/service for other developers. There have been discussions about where the project should stand regarding usage of github et al for their Debian related work. So far I think nothing paned out, and my personal opinion is that it is far better that way. (of course, let's not discuss my personal opinion) Regards, -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on RMS rejoining FSF
Hi Sruthi! Thanks for this work, it quite fits more what I'd be happy to sponsor! Here are a few remarks if you have some time to review and address. Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 22:45:57+0530, Sruthi Chandran a écrit : > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > > Dear fellow DDs, > > Second the amendment text if acceptable to you :) > > Begin text > > Under section 4.1.5 of the constitution, the Developers make the > following statement: > > *Debian’s statement on Richard Stallman rejoining the FSF board* > > We at Debian are profoundly disappointed to hear of the re-election of Is it an election or nomination? > Richard Stallman to a leadership position at the Free Software > Foundation, after a series of serious accusations of misconduct led to > his resignation as president and board member of the FSF in 2019. > > One crucial factor in making our community more inclusive is to > recognise and reflect when other people are harmed by our > own actions and consider this feedback in future actions. The way > Richard Stallman announced his return to the board unfortunately lacks > any acknowledgement of this kind of thought process. We are deeply > disappointed that the FSF board elected him a board member again despite > no discernible steps were taken > by him to be accountable for, much less make amends for, his past > actions or those who have been harmed by them. Finally, we are also > disturbed by the secretive process of his re-election, and how it was > belately conveyed [0] to FSF’s staff and supporters. > > We believe this step and how it was communicated sends wrong and hurtful > message and harms the future of the Free Software movement. The goal of > the software freedom movement is to empower all people to control > technology and thereby create a better society for everyone. Free > Software is meant to serve everyone regardless of their age, ability or > disability, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion or > sexual orientation. This requires an inclusive and diverse environment > that welcomes all contributors equally. Debian realises that we > ourselves and the Free Software movement still have to work hard to be > in that place where everyone feels safe and respected to participate in > it in order to fulfil the movement's mission. > > > That is why, we call for his resignation from all FSF bodies. The FSF > needs to seriously reflect on this decision as well as their > decision-making process to prevent similar issues from happening again. > Therefore, in the current situation we see ourselves unable to > collaborate both with the FSF and any other organisation in which > Richard Stallman has a leading position. Instead, we will continue to > work with groups and individuals who foster diversity and equality in > the Free Software movement in order to achieve our joint goal of > empowering all users to control technology. +1! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:46:10+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue a écrit : > Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:05:26+0100, Dominik George a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's > > > readmission to the FSF board. > > > > > > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been > > > suggested. > > > > I explicitly do NOT support this GR. > > > > My opinion, as laid out at > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285: > > > > 8><-- > > With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects > > signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU > > project altogether, it seems we are officially at war. > > > > With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard > > Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his > > views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and > > sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken. > > As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate > > an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and > > hear these cases (including rms' position). > > > > What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS > > community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces > > evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and > > every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process > > certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any > > FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for > > this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem. > > > > As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee, > > and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to > > instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee). > > > > Thanks for listening! > > > > P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly > > discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to > > the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird. > > --><8 > > > > > > As such, I want to make the following amendment: > > > > 8><-- > > Choice 2 > > > > > > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard > > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at > > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > > > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the > > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the > > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to > > sign the statement, or to not do so. > > > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of: > > > > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board > > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms, > > and we take every single report very serously > > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of > > rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and > > the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with > > the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses > > * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation > > committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the > > FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other > > organisations and in full transparency > > --><8 > > Seconded. > > Note: IDK yet if I'd vote for that choice, but I'm keen on having a fair > set of choices for this GR. After thinking to it more, I rescind my sponsorship for that amendment. Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project itself, sign any letter regarding rms
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:24:10+0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Mathias Behrle (2021-03-26 10:40:55) > > * Timo Weingärtner: " Re: "rms-open-letter" choice 3: do not, as the project > > itself, sign any letter regarding rms" (Fri, 26 Mar 2021 09:19:44 +0100): > > > > > Hallo Martin Michlmayr, > > > > > > 26.03.21 09:15 Martin Michlmayr: > > > > * Timo Weingärtner [2021-03-26 09:12]: > > > > > The Debian Project will issue a public statement on whether Richard > > > > > Stallman > > > > ^^ > > > > I think you forgot the word "not" here. > > > > > > Of course, thanks. > > > > > > Updated text: > > > ---8<---8<---8<--- > > > The Debian Project will not issue a public statement on whether Richard > > > Stallman should be removed from leadership positions or not. > > > > > > Any individual (including Debian members) is free to issue such > > > statements or > > > (co-)sign any open letter. > > > > As a matter of course each individual is/shall be free to do so, we don't > > have > > to debate this right at all or in a GR. Furthermore I would like to have the > > wording restricted to the current document in question. > > > > Could this be changed to something along the lines: > > > > """ > > Any individual (including Debian members) wishing to (co-)sign the open > > letter > > in question is invited to do this in person. > > """ > > Seconded - on the condition that Timo Weingärtner replaces his previous > proposal with one one including above edit. Same here. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: General Resolution: Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 11:05:26+0100, Dominik George a écrit : > Hi, > > > A General Resolution has been started about Richard Stallman's > > readmission to the FSF board. > > > > It currently has 1 available options, but other proposals have been > > suggested. > > I explicitly do NOT support this GR. > > My opinion, as laid out at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/issues/2285: > > 8><-- > With the FSFE freezing its collaboration with the FSF, projects > signing open letters to effectively disassemble the FSF and the GNU > project altogether, it seems we are officially at war. > > With all due respect to everyone who has been offended by Richard > Stallman, feels oppressed by him, or is negatively affected by his > views — every single such person has to be heard, their fears and > sorrows been taken into account, and appropriate action been taken. > As such, I am in full support of requiring the FSF board to instate > an investigation committee, take letters from anyone affected, and > hear these cases (including rms' position). > > What I do not support is forcing the disintegration of the FOSS > community, even less in such crucial times. The COVID pandemic forces > evryone to digitise the hell out of them and their organisations, and > every action that weakens the FOSS movement in this ciritical process > certainly does more harm to the ecosystem than a single person on any > FOSS body's board ever could. Thus, I consider those responsible for > this, in my opinion, thoughtless action harmful to the FOSS ecosystem. > > As already said, I am in full support of an investigation committee, > and would immediately sign an open letter requesting the FSF to > instate one (including a helpful list of requirements for this committee). > > Thanks for listening! > > P.S.: On a side note, hosting this thing on GitHub, which explicitly > discriminates against parts of the community and is itself harmful to > the FOSS ecosystem as a whole, is at least a bit weird. > --><8 > > > As such, I want to make the following amendment: > > 8><-- > Choice 2 > > > The Debian Project does not co-sign the statement regarding Richard > Stallman's readmission to the FSF board seen at > https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/blob/main/index.md > > In its role as an important body in the free software world, the > Project has made its members aware of the situation, and respects the > opinion of all of its members. In doing so, every member is free to > sign the statement, or to not do so. > > The Debian Project make an official statement, along the lines of: > > * We have learnt about rms being readmitted to the FSF board > * We are aware of critical voices regarding the person known as rms, > and we take every single report very serously > * Everyone who is affected by any action, opinion or statement of > rms can ask the Debian Anti Harassment team for support, and > the Anti Harassment team will suppor tthem in communicating with > the FSF and ensure their concerns are addresses > * The Debian Project supports the instatement of an investigation > committee regarding all accusations against rms and asks the > FSF board to take such action, in close cooperation with other > organisations and in full transparency > --><8 Seconded. Note: IDK yet if I'd vote for that choice, but I'm keen on having a fair set of choices for this GR. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Having a "DPL committee"?
The idea was discussed two years ago. Sam chose a range of people to help him with delegations. Being a DPL is a high-energy thing even when one doesn't try to "lead" the project /per se/. Do you think the Project should consider the opportunity of trying to establish more clearly a role of "DPL advisors" who would be identified as helpers for the DPL and additional entry points for the developers/external people should the need arise? Cheers! -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
