Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009 Results
On Sunday 12 April 2009 17:43:36 Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 01:01:38AM +0200, Luigi Gangitano wrote: Hi Kurt, can you please report on issue in the voting software that prevented some ballots to be processed? I sent my vote twince on April 9 and April 11 and got the following answer back: Hi Luigi, I wish you contacted me about this before so that we could find a solution to get your vote counted. Just a comment: if Luigi sent a valid vote during the correct time frame, and it was rejected because of a software bug, shouldn't it still count, even if the problem is not brought up until later, even if you have to add this information in manually or after the fact? Obviously one vote either way doesn't affect the result of this election, but IMO voter disenfranchisement should be taken VERY seriously. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
On Saturday 21 March 2009 13:00:01 Joerg Jaspert wrote: There are some that do not take part in the discussions but vote, there are those who do not even follow debian-vote because they do not feel it is worth the effort, and those that are simply not active at all. I do not have the numbers right now, but IIRC we have had an average of 300 to 400 votes in the most controversial disputes recently. In other words, considering the seconds requirement from the 1000-something DDs we count formally is fiction, when less than half of them actually participate in the decision process. There is nothing else that good to use. *I* wouldnt want to write something like take the amount of voters for the latest GR/DPL election to calculate Q. That would be sick. And using the official DD count does work for all the other parts too, so I see no reason to define something special now, in fear of people wont vote. If we think Q or 2Q is too high, someone could propose requiring floor(Q/2) or floor(Q/4). I think Q is still a good reference point. -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Monday 15 December 2008 12:09:28 Frans Pop wrote: I also call on all Debian Developers to *not* vote in this poll. I must be missing something: is there some percieved harm in Debian Developers voting on an *unofficial poll*? -- Wesley J. Landaker w...@icecavern.net xmpp:w...@icecavern.net OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Ballot for leader2008
On Sunday 13 April 2008 16:25:40 Manoj Srivastava wrote: NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail (RFC 3156 compliant). You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed, encrypted ballot. [...] One comment is that it says you can send in a signed, encrypted ballot, but it doesn't say encrypted to what key. -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. If I read this ballot, I would *assume* that this key was the one I was supposed to encrypt to, but it doesn't actually say so. So maybe something slightly more explicit, like: NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring. The voting software (Devotee) accepts mail that either contains only an unmangled OpenPGP message (RFC 2440 compliant), or a PGP/MIME mail (RFC 3156 compliant). You may, if you wish, choose to send a signed, encrypted ballot (using the vote key below for encryption). [...] -- The responses to a valid vote shall be signed by the vote key created for this vote. Also, this key must be used when submitting an encrypted ballot. The public key for the vote, signed by the Project secretary, is appended below. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
On Monday 06 August 2007 04:52:58 MJ Ray wrote: I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose: AMENDMENT PROPOSAL Point 2 remains as before; that is, it will still read: 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL and I ask for seconds. Seconded. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: A question to the Debian community ...
On Friday 11 May 2007 05:43:33 Holger Levsen wrote: Also I wonder where all those supporters of Sven are now. I wouldnt be surprised if by now, more people have killfilled Sven and all messages refering to his messages, than there are supporters of him in Debian. I should probably do the same. I'd guess that they are quiet, for the most part, because they aren't actively flaming and trolling Sven at every opportunity, and there really isn't much to be done at this point about the Kangaroo Expulsion, unless someone has enough energy and motivation to propose and champion a GR. As far as killfiling goes, it's funny that most people who talk about killfiling Sven are generally the ones who keep trolling him. Anyway, I'm not particularly interesting in continuing this discussion, so I probably will not reply again, especially not to the inevitable flames because I dared say something vaguely positive about Sven. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpIf1fUcgbVd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2007: Draft ballot
On Friday 09 March 2007 16:18, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Given that this election has a record number of options, making us move to using Hex instead of decimal numbers for ranking, ^^^ coupled with the fact that I'll be out of town all of next week, you are getting to see the draft ballot earlier this year than is the norm. Hmmm, decimal would have been quite a bit more straightforward and required a lot less of an explanation. Of course, no big deal for me or for Debian Developers in general, but I smell a kludge. I don't object to hex (although I dislike prefix-less hex notation quite a bit in general), but this looks like it was chosen just to avoid having to parse more than one digit or something. Or was this actually thoroughly thought out and chosen for a different reason? Along those lines, what are we going to do when/if we have more than 15 choices on a ballot? It's not an unthinkable situation. Would we not call it hex, but continue the alphabet to use G-Z? Or would we enter choice number 17 as 11? -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgppTJDols7pT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2007: Draft ballot
On Friday 09 March 2007 18:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:08:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I don't object to hex (although I dislike prefix-less hex notation quite a bit in general), but this looks like it was chosen just to avoid having to parse more than one digit or something. Or was this actually thoroughly thought out and chosen for a different reason? Along those lines, what are we going to do when/if we have more than 15 choices on a ballot? It's not an unthinkable situation. Would we not call it hex, but continue the alphabet to use G-Z? Or would we enter choice number 17 as 11? The last would be silly, and would lead us into the same representational changes devotee is trying to avoid. For those too lazy to look up the code, devotee actually works in Base36 now. Hey, you said hex, not me. Base36 sounds much more reasonable. Thanks for the all insults BTW, I have learned to always expect that from you. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpURTXTBgg1w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote: [...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exited 0 with a wrongly built binary. And couldn't this just as easily happen with *real* machines with motherboard problems, bad memory, overheating CPUs, or, say Pentium floating point errors? Or—heaven forbid—a bug in the compiler or kernel, or incorrect build libraries. I've either had or heard of *all* of these things resulting in bad reproducibility or failed builds. Yet, in practice, these things are not really worth worrying about. To me this just sounds like anti-emulator superstition. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpuee1qfBRAZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Friday 09 February 2007 05:52, Reinhard Tartler wrote: The use case I imagine at this point is that a maintainer uploads a library package src+bin (e.g. src+amd64) for his private arch, and after weeks he notices, that it still has not been built on e.g. sparc yet. So he decides to start his spare Ultra 1 workstation, builds the package in his custom environment and uploads it. My question to this use case: What happens with the lost buildlogs? Is there any possibility for a maintainer who depends on this library to check the build logs for this package on this particular architecture? Is the maintainer somehow encouraged or force by policy to publish his buildlogs? Does is this different from wanting to check the amd64 build log, but it can't be done because that was the initial architecture upload? This scenerio is basically just equivalent to a src+amd64+sparc upload instead of a src+sparc or src+amd64 upload. Already maintainers can basically upload src+(any architecture of their choosing) for each version. In fact, I occasionally upload my own packages as src+i386, but other times as src+amd64. If I had a sparc machine, I'd probably upload my packages as src+sparc every once in a while just for fun and profit. If we think that's a bad idea, we should propose that maintainers must do src+bin uploads but that the bin will be discarded and rebuild for *every* architecture. To my knowledge, this has been discussed many times before but never proposed officially. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp68NXOqFxXV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Friday 09 February 2007 17:02, Stephen Gran wrote: I am sure qemu is very good at what it does, but I do not have faith that it can stand in for a real CPU in all the corner cases. If Aurelien builds a java package that had previously FTBFS'd, do we have any guarantee that it will build natively? How is the security team supposed to support that? On the other hand, I can *currently* upload my own packages as src+bin with a binary I built inside qemu and no one would ever be the wiser. I don't see much difference in that respect, unless you are arguing for src+bin uploads with sources autorebuild on *all* architectures (which incidentally, I believe I would be all for). -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp8fwvuWhN3u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Thursday 08 February 2007 10:00, Bill Allombert wrote: Dear Debian voters, I hereby propose the following General Resolution for sponsoring. --- The Debian project resolves that Debian developers allowed to perform combined source and binary packages uploads should be allowed to perform binary-only packages uploads for the same set of architectures. --- Seconded. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpUs3EhngzIP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [GR] DD should be allowed to perform binary-only uploads
On Thursday 08 February 2007 10:33, Sune Vuorela wrote: Why do you want to lose the ability to do src+bin uploads for arm+alpha? It sounded to me like this GR is saying that binary-only uploads couldn't be restricted to a small set of people, but would be allowed for anyone who could normally do regular uploads. Or shouldn't there be a all release candidate archs somewhere in there? ...but I agree that it could be worded more clearly. Also, it probably would be better if it made clear that this only is talking about binary-only package uploads that are allowed under the current conditions (e.g. building for other architectures, bin-NMUs, etc) but since the GR doesn't specifically mention changes there my assumption is that it wouldn't change any of those rules. Alternatively, this can be interpreted as a GR for source-only uploads. Do you mean, someone should propose something so that source-only uploads that would be an alternative option on this GR? Or do you mean that the GR text as is could be interpreted as allowing/requiring/[somethinging] source-only uploads? (I don't see how the latter is could be...) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpyNzePvfnGf.pgp Description: PGP signature
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 -- misleading statement
Hi Debian Secretary and Leader, At http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001, it lists the text of the amendments. However, for Choice 3 there is a paragraph at the end that is not part of the amendment, but is placed and formated such that it appears to be. I think this is very inappropriate and I urge you to correct this as soon as possible. Specifically, this part: We do not think that this requirement of GPL makes GPL covered programs non-free even though it can potentially make a GPL-covered program undistributable. Its purpose is against misuse of patents. Similarly, we do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media. Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. DFSG article 3 would need to be changed, or at least clarified. As it reads, it states that licenses a work is available under must allow modifications of the work. This is very misleading, as there is no line break, heading, or any other kind of formatting change or delineation that makes it clear this is comment from you the secretary than part of the original proposal. Also, this paragraph is redundant because there is a section just a few lines later called Majority Requirement where it already asserts this 3:1 requirement. I think this really needs to be cleared up, as it is very misleading and seems to imply that the _proposal itself_ stated that it needed a 3:1 majority and requires a DFSG change, which is completely opposite what the amendment actually states. Thanks. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp7zqAPm0f8D.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] gpg signature (was: Re: De-nomination)
On Thursday 23 February 2006 15:59, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: On 02/23/2006 12:10 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I hereby de-nominate myself as a candidate for DPL 2006. [...] Ok, probably it is only with me and and I'm going to figure out that the problem is my MUA, my keyring or something *really* simple, but I should ask anyway. :-) Lars GPG signature failed to be checked. Obviously I am missing something or did something wrong, but somebody can just confirm that the signature is ok (or not)? It also checked as an invalid signature here. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpAEtdvruckQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the amendment quoted below. On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote: Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpVnSJb9DD0U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The license must permit modifications. No if, and, or buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true. Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications (so that modifications is plural). Anyway, you, or I, or anyone can go on and on about nitpicking what it says and what is or is not an interpretation, but all of that is pointless, since the Debian Free Software Guidelines are, well, guidelines. I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to determine how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense and gut feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote on this doesn't require any changes to what the document says, nor does it change what the document means. It's merely showing what how majority of developers think the guideliens should be applied to the GFDL. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp2hoIdBN3Y8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 08:46, Margarita Manterola wrote: Of course, the spirit of the DFSG is that of allowing to modify the whole text, but it's not explicitly stated, Okay, here's the thing: why do you (or anyone) get to say what the spirit of the DFSG is about, and why should anyone's opinion of that be binding on the project? The DFSG are guidelines, and the spirit of them feels slightly different to every developer. Now, ideally, we'd all agree what the spirit of the DFSG, and agree on how to apply them in ever case. Since we obviously DON'T all agree on exactly what the spirit of it is--you say the spirit requires allowing modifications to the whole text, others say it only requires allowing modifications to some/most of it--this GR can show us what the majority of developers on the project actual believe. Whatever their decision, this doesn't change the DFSG, nor does it change the spirit of it. It just means that the non-majority (whichever side that is) apparently is interpreting the DFSG incorrectly in the opinion of the project as a whole. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpVSHabeBzva.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications (so that modifications is plural). Are you seriously suggesting that a webserver which allows one to only modify the name it advertizes and the path to the default configuration file is Free? Nobody is suggesting that. The point is that DFSG allow many interpretations and the Debian developers have to decide which one is the correct one. But you have not explained how your amendment is an interpretation rather than a modification of the DFSG. You cannot simply write something new, and say and this is an interpretation of the DFSG! It must actually *be* an interpretation, whether correct or not. Perhaps Anton has not, but I have done my best to explain this in other emails. I haven't yet seen anyone explain how it is an *invalid* interpretation, other than by using hyberbole or saying that it violates the spirit of the DFSG as if that is a commonly known fact. I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the tables were turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpzM9VzwJcTn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:24, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:13:05 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The license must permit modifications. No if, and, or buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true. Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications (so that modifications is plural). Nice hair splitting. But The license must permit modifications would nominally be interpreted to mean modifications are permitted. Period. So far, I am not swayed by this line of argument. You missed my point. If you are saying that The license must permit modifications has one, and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is The license must permit any and all modifications, then you are really doing the hair splitting, because that's not what it said. It's a perfectly valid interpreation, but it's not the one-and-only possible one that meets the spirit of the Debian project. My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian project--of The license must permit modifications to say that it means instead, The license must permit reasonable modification. If your really think my appeal to allowing developers to use their own common sense during this vote is hair splitting then I don't think we're communicating well. *sigh* I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to determine how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense and gut feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote on this doesn't require any changes to what the document says, nor does it change what the document means. It's merely showing what how majority of developers think the guideliens should be applied to the GFDL. I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were enough to interpret codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion, then there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super majority. Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is novel and unconventional, but if you really, *honestly* believe that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views about the GFDL, I guess I understand your position. Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I do agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support you even if I think you are wrong. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpxLM0Gg1Jza.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 17:51, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: We do not yet have *anyone* who has posted an interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL would pass. Nobody has even tried. The amendment just declares it hereby passes; and nobody, despite Manoj's request, has proffered one. There have been some vague references to interpretations being made, but not actually spelled out and then applied, to see whether they are at all plausible. Thomas, I don't even know what your asking for here. It only makes sense to give a big long detailed interpretation of the points of the DFSG where it FAILS. Normally when we review a license, we point out all the parts it FAILS. Nobody ever writes a big long explanation--for ANY license--point by point on the DFSG and shows how it passes. That doesn't even make sense for some of the points that say it must not do something. A spelled out and then applied interperation would just be it says it must not do this; it doesn't. For example, if someone were doing 'an interpretation', and they got to DFSG 1 and didn't think there was a problem, they'd just write DFSG 1: good, doesn't have any of these restrictions. They wouldn't write a book about it; it wouldn't make any sense to. Only if someone thought it DIDN'T meet DFSG 1 would they be able to go point by point. Anyway, maybe you could give us an example format showing your point of view and then if someone wants to show and alternate interpretation/point of view, they can do it in a fashion that would be acceptable to you? (I'm serious, not being sarcastic.) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpdzYKl3vHD4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:20, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm seriously asking, because I don't see it either permitting OR limiting; it just says modifiablility. You read it assume it means that no limits are allowed. Someone else reads it and assumes that it means some limits are okay. How does that someone else determine *which* limits are ok? After all, their position is that the GFDL permits some limits but not others. They use common sense. If they are wrong in a specific instance, a bunch of people will argue about it on debian-legal and the ftp-masters will either let it in/kick it out or not. You know, the way it works for EVERYTHING ELSE in Debian. =) And yet, nobody has presented their interpretation. So far, only one interpretation has been given: the DFSG permits whatever modifications the user wishes. (Or, alternatively, it permits whatever changes are deemed useful by the user, and the user is the judge of what is a useful change.) If there is another interpretation, it's time to give it, rather than just saying vaguely that it must be there. Okay, here is a possible interpretation: The DFSG requires all reasonable modifications. Reasonable is always determined in an case-by-base basis. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp7OnvSGIjQr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:17, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Nobody has, at all, even in the least even *presented* this supposed interpretation of the DFSG under which the GFDL passes. Okay, I just presented on in my last e-mail, so you can stop saying this. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpGPvpjJVByr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the tables were turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1. Are you saying that Manoj is acting in bad faith? I have no way of knowing, but I sure hope that he isn't. Having a 3:1 supermajority is good for Manojs stated personal opinion on the subject, so there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. I only started contributing to this thread in the first place when Manoj called for input, and the first reply I got from him sounded firey and closed-minded. Since then, I have decided that the best I can do try to clearly state my views and urge Manoj to make a good decision. To be clear, I have certainly never accused Manoj of doing anything wrong, but he is in the position to do it if he wanted to. Apparently, you didn't see this message from me: On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:23, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is novel and unconventional, but if you really, *honestly* believe that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views about the GFDL, I guess I understand your position. Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I do agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support you even if I think you are wrong. =) Even if I don't agree with Manoj, I will obviously support him in his role as secrectary as long as he is honestly doing his best effort to be objective. Really at this point if he tells me straight out that he is, I'll believe him. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpGJyQDMilkZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a Actually, a group of developers, no matter how large, can proceed to claim whatever they want, but the project's interpretation is up to the secretary. If (s)he is in the minority of one, it is still _his_ interpretation that matters, nobody elses. This would be my view too. But we have people claiming that the secretary is somehow remiss in deciding such a case himself, on the sole grounds that there are a bunch of people who say they think differently. The secretary is going to get the final say, but that doesn't mean that those who believe that he is making a wrong choice should not attempt to give their points of view and make him reconsider. If end in the end he makes a decision and it's been done completely in good faith, then nobody is going to belly-ache after-the-fact. Okay--reality check--maybe a bunch of people will. But at least for me, *I* will support the secretary's good faith decisions--he's just doing his job. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp7ZqG5gSkLL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are saying that The license must permit modifications has one, and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is The license must permit any and all modifications, then you are really doing the hair splitting, because that's not what it said. It's a perfectly valid interpreation, but it's not the one-and-only possible one that meets the spirit of the Debian project. Actually, I think it does have one and only one interpretation. The way to prove me wrong is to seriously say, I think there is a different interpretation which is plausible, and this is it: XXX. And then, make that stick. In the same e-mail you quoted, I stated a possible alternate interpretation: On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:23, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian project--of The license must permit modifications to say that it means instead, The license must permit reasonable modification. (Well, sorry for the weird grammar in that sentence. ;) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpieYt8urAq2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:53, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:43 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is novel and unconventional, but if you really, *honestly* believe that, and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views about the GFDL, I guess I understand your position. Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I do agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support you even if I think you are wrong. =) My personal beliefs do not have any bearing on actions I takew with my secretaries hat on, to the best of my ability to do so. Manoj, I know this should be an implicit to give the project secretary, but I don't know you personally. Thanks for saying this--I respect that a lot. I do believe that The license must allof for modifications does mean that any modification of the work must be permissible -- not just modifying whatever the author gives you permission to modify. Well, to a large extent I agree with you--I certainly would prefer software with that property myself!--but I still feel that that's a question of interpretation, not of fact. Anyway, I won't argue any further about it; I've posted more than enough on this topic. I suppose if the Debian project at large wants this change enough, they'll jump through the 3:1 hoop. (I'm still not even sure what I'm going to vote for myself.) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpvj4aGgD5dO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Anton's amendment
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:45, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Manoj, the Project Secretary, has said that, in his opinion, it does. He has also expressed is openness to being convinced to the contrary. Those who wish to convince him need to do more than just declare it's all a matter of interpretation and then point to the controversy to demonstrate that it's all just a matter of interpretation. They need to actually give the interpretation they would like Manoj to take into account. Thomas, I have honestly been trying to do this, but for whatever reason, it's not being communicated well. Partly, this may be because I'm been trying not to arguing a specific stance, but that other stances should be considered valid interpretations, not changes to a foundation document. Anyway, I am done arguing on this. The secretary has my input and will go ahead and make the decision he thinks is right. I think it might not be what I agree with, but that's okay, he's doing his job (and this arguing is just me trying to do mine!). -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpuBEGEV9gjR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote: So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the license is currently written. I believe this issue is a matter of interpretation, especially given that the DFSG is specifically and explicitly intended to be a set of guidelines. My reading of all the options of this GR so far have the effect of stating how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect to the GFDL. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpkmX7XhvnIL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sunday 22 January 2006 11:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 10:21:13 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Saturday 21 January 2006 13:52, Manoj Srivastava wrote: So, I am seeking arguments and guidance from the developer body whether issue 1 can, and should, be decidable by a general resolution, or whether the freeness of the GFDL licensed works without invariant clauses is incontrovertibly non-free, as the license is currently written. My reading of all the options of this GR so far have the effect of stating how the Debian project is interpreting the DFSG with respect to the GFDL. I beg to differ. The original proposal was to explain the stance Debian has already taken, as evidenced by the BTS usertags gfdl and nonfree-doc, and the release team statement -- and how the license may be fixed. Well, I believe that the original proposal was to *determine* the stance Debian should take. Anyway, you asked, as Project Secretary, for arguments and guidance from developers, so I provied my input. If you someone wants to change how Debian interprets the GFDL, it should be a separate issue -- and quite likely should be done before. Why is it that no one cared to override the delegates decision until a statement explaining the decision is being issued? Well, this last paragraph makes it sound to me like you've already made up your mind. If you are actually interested in why I personally didn't publicly make a big deal about the delegates decision, I'd be happy to discuss it some other time, but I don't think my action or inaction actually relevent to this GR. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpG75lspyeZK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
purpose to the measures taken in the GNU General Public License against the patents: If a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. We do not think that this requirement of GPL makes GPL covered programs non-free even though it can potentially make a GPL-covered program undistributable. Its purpose is against misuse of patents. Similarly, we do not think that GFDL covered documentation is non-free because of the measures taken in the license against misuse of DRM-protected media. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp2QHcXEjwpG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. These parts include: * Invariant Sections * Cover Texts * Acknowledgements * Dedications However, modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which state: 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. As such, we cannot accept works that include Invariant Sections and similar unmodifiable components into our distribution. -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpZ4h3pse16M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: How to handle tie?
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 14:48, Graham Wilson wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:12:10PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: devotee is the software used in debian to tally votes, available with a bit of googling via arch: http://www.golden-gryphon.com/cgi-bin/archzoom.cgi/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -2003-primary/devotee?expand (I couldn't find a regular tarball release unfortunately) Speaking of which, Manoj, do you make regular tarball releases of devotee? And (I'm sure this has been mentioned before) it would sure be nice to have a Debian package, as the software sounds quite useful. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpcwu75bU2IL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:38:51 +0200, David Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:29, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:18:26 +0100, Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If I sign three votes over the course of a day and then send them in reverse order, will the votes that were signed earlier be accepted even if they were sent later? Sure. As far as devotee is concerned, the ordering when the ballots were received is the only one that matters. Since email ordering is not guaranteed, you may wish to wait for devotee's ack is you are firing off multiple ballots. So any signed vote made public can be used to override any later decision by the voter in question by replaying the publicised mail and signature. No, that would be stupid. This is why we have a guard against replay attacks. But if the original vote that was signed and posted publicly was never sent in, then there wouldn't be any record of the vote--so if it was sent in at the last minute, devotee would be seeing it for the first time... -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpwsPQdJIxiz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David N. Welton) writes: Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:12:51PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote: I'm amazed at how little people seem to have done to inform themselves about all the candidates, myself. Just because people vote in a way that you might not does not mean they are uninformed. I'm not convinced. Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-) Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot... -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp6QwC2UOa7a.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:57, Matthew Garrett wrote: Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote: Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-) Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot... You can send in multiple ballots. Only the last one will count. As a result, you're free to change your mind up until the deadline. Possibly this should be more widely publicised? Ah, well, that's good to know! Now I have time to change my mind as well... ;) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpLNvEq8Lyse.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
On Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:15, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 02:57:43AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52, Roger Leigh wrote: Happily, the OP still has a chance to change his mind ;-) Unless someone else sends in his already signed ballot... You can send in multiple ballots. Only the last one will count. As a result, you're free to change your mind up until the deadline. I think that Wesley may be thinking more along the lines of a simple replay attack -- if you *do* change your mind, your earlier (publically posted) ballot can be fed back into the system again, to reset your preferences to those you originally chose. Actually, I was thinking of replay, but was thinking in terms of the system only accepting one vote, but since it accepts it more than ones, this is also an attack... of course, it's irrelevent if you never change your mind. (= Since the voter gets a return e-mail, they'd likely know about it, but if the attacker was clever and threw your ballot in right before the deadline, you wouldn't have enough time to correct it, and would need to bother Manoj to get it sorted out. Yeah, it seems this would be possible in the current system. One way to work around this would be to reject vote e-mails that are identical to ones seen before (say, save a md5sum of the signed portion of the e-mail, *including* the GPG signature block). -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgptzLOfiXbhV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: followup to my time-management question
On Sunday, 20 March 2005 20:50, Erinn Clark wrote: * Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005:03:20 18:35 -0800]: I post this now so that the information I have researched may be available to the voters, having waited until the end of the campaigning period to give each candidate a fully fair opportunity to answer for themselves. It was pretty of unfair to post this now. Having looked over the data you posted, I see some things which lack extremely crucial information for context, but pointing this out is almost like campaigning on behalf of the candidates or taking potshots at the other. Either way they can't reply. They can't reply? Okay, nothing particular about this message, or even this thread, but I keep seeing messages implying there is some kind of can't compaign rule that happens when voting starts. I don't see anything like that in the constitution--in fact, there isn't even anything in there about a Compaign Period, only about a perioud during which no candidates can be nominated, and a note that candidates *should* use this time for campaigning. Even if it's debatable if that should is exlcusive or inclusive, it's still just a should. I don't see why a DPL candidate couldn't go until the day the vote ends, or start compaigning for 2012 starting now if they really wanted to (other than that it would be silly/annoying/unruly/bad-karma/whatever). -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpgmkdTUaEoZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
