Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Eduard == Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eduard #include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004, Eduard 07:16:04PM]: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. Eduard You can propose what you want. If people in position do Eduard not give a f..k about your concern, fire them. We are a Eduard community and not their slaves. I'd like to see if I can restrate this in a possibly less confrontational manner. The project can pass a resolution that by its wording directs developers to take some action. I think that many of us recognize the value of governance. We recognize that some times we'll have to give in to the wishes of the community as a whole. For those of us who do recognize this, a directive in the form of an approved GR would carry significant weight. Certainly if faced with such a GR, I'd either go along with the GR, arrange things so that someone willing to implement the GR could do so, resign from some position within the project or resign completely from the project. Even if a developer is unwilling to take one of these steps, I expect the project leadership including the DPL and the TC would respect the will of the project and take appropriate steps to make sure a GR is eventually implemented. The current DPL seems likely to try and accomplish such goals while avoiding driving people away from the project even if doing so involves significant delay. Honestly that seems reasonable. In summary, we can pass a resolution that appears to direct a member of the project to take some action. Because of our constitution, no one is actually forced to act. However, like any community we can work with our members and if it ultimately proves necessary bring appropriate pressure on our members in order to accomplish necessary tasks. Nothing in this message should be taken to apply that I believe the current situation justifies a resolution that directs members of the project to take action. I'm still unconvinced that a vote is the right solution to this problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort. You could formulate it as: That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, is violating the constituion and is warned to follow it. Is that less of a no-op? No, then it's just a lie. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer It can't be both already covered by the constitution and him not violating it. So it's eigther no no-op or he is breaking the constituion and acompaning rules. Pick one. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
I propose an amendment to this GR proposal. The text is completely replaced by: === The Debian project hereby resolves: - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, should explain publicly (via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) the problems which delay this action. - That the developers working on the amd64 port should be invited to friendly cooperate in solving all of these problems. - That failure to accomplish the above rules implies any existant problems shall be ignored and hence amd64 added to the unstable archive without further delay. - That success in accomplishing the above rules has no implication with regard to inclussion of the amd64 architecture in a stable release. === Rationale: - Taking technical decisions through voting is not generaly a good idea. - We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease communication between the affected parties. - Deciding wether the port is ready for sarge is beyond the scope of this problem. On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: The Debian project, based on its Social Contract stating that its priorities are its users and free software, recognizing that the AMD64-based architectures are likely to become the most widespread on personal computers and workstations in a near future, and acknowledging that its users want to take advantage of all this architecture's features, hereby resolves: 1. that the next Debian GNU/Linux release, codenamed sarge, will include the amd64 architecture, based on the work currently hosted at http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ ; 2. that non-compliance of that amd64 distribution with the Linux Standard Base specification for IA32 will not be considered a release-critical bug; 3. that we will include it immediately in the sid distribution and auto-building infrastructure, and take all appropriate steps so that inclusion won't delay the release of sarge any further. Rationale: With our current release timeframe, AMD64 is likely to become the most sold architecture for personal computers way before the release that will follow sarge. If we don't release sarge with AMD64 support, our users will be very disappointed. The popularity of the debian-amd64 project just shows what they are waiting for. Furthermore, the AMD64 architecture is mostly ready. It now builds just as many packages as our other release architectures, and it has a working installer. The only valid reasons for not including it are lack of LSB compliance (which can still be easily achieved with a i386 chroot) and mirror space (which will be saved using partial mirroring). Another reason seems to be the lack of cooperation of some developers. This resolution intends to make everyone cooperate in this direction. Of course, the author of this resolution would welcome if the people responsible would just do it, thereby making this resolution superfluous. I'm looking for seconds for this proposal, and I hope this can be discussed quickly so that it doesn't delay the release for too long. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom -- Robert Millan (Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\ (kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution)) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Rationale: - Taking technical decisions through voting is not generaly a good idea. Agreed. - We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease communication between the affected parties. This GR seems to force communication between ftpmaster and the porters. I don't think communication will be eased by a GR forcing people to talk to each other. How is this better than the text of the original GR? - Deciding wether the port is ready for sarge is beyond the scope of this problem. Agreed. -- gram -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: === The Debian project hereby resolves: - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, should explain publicly (via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) the problems which delay this action. This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. - That the developers working on the amd64 port should be invited to friendly cooperate in solving all of these problems. This is explicitly a no-op. - That failure to accomplish the above rules implies any existant problems shall be ignored and hence amd64 added to the unstable archive without further delay. Another no-op by rule of the constitution. - That success in accomplishing the above rules has no implication with regard to inclussion of the amd64 architecture in a stable release. And another explicit no-op. You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:16:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. Please note the use of should instead of must in the resolution. I intended it as an official positioning by the project, not an authoritative statement. Does that address your concern? -- Robert Millan (Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\ (kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution)) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:12:20PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: - We're facing a communication problem, so the solution is to ease communication between the affected parties. This GR seems to force communication between ftpmaster and the porters. I don't put in question the ftp-masters' criteria for putting amd64 on hold, but if they take a decision I think they're responsible for explaining their reasons. My suggestion for ftp-masters is that you just send a mail to d-d-a explaining your position. This would make this GR unnecessary and IMHO be the best solution for all. I don't think communication will be eased by a GR forcing people to talk to each other. Well, since everything else has failed, I disagree. How is this better than the text of the original GR? It doesn't pretend that there are no reasons to justify the delay (for sid), and gives ftp-masters a chance to explain them. -- Robert Millan (Debra and Ian) (Gnu's Not (UNiplexed Information and Computing System))/\ (kernel of *(Berkeley Software Distribution)) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
* Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]: On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: === The Debian project hereby resolves: - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, should explain publicly (via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) the problems which delay this action. This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. The developers may issue positions of the day (and this one could be considered as one, as this doesn't try to force somebody to do work, but to say: we would like if this happens). However, whether publically telling somebody what exactly would he should do, would really help to solve the problem, is something different. (Same is true for all other issues in this GR-draft.) So, for me, this GR wouldn't conflict with the constitution, but I doubt very much that this draft is part of solving our problems. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 08:51:14PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:16:04PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. Please note the use of should instead of must in the resolution. I intended it as an official positioning by the project, not an authoritative statement. Does that address your concern? No, it merely underscores that this resolution doesn't do anything. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:48:24PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]: On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: === The Debian project hereby resolves: - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, should explain publicly (via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) the problems which delay this action. This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. The developers may issue positions of the day (and this one could be considered as one, as this doesn't try to force somebody to do work, but to say: we would like if this happens). However, whether publically telling somebody what exactly would he should do, would really help to solve the problem, is something different. (Same is true for all other issues in this GR-draft.) Yes, that's still a no-op. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:04:02PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: I don't think communication will be eased by a GR forcing people to talk to each other. Well, since everything else has failed, I disagree. None of these other things worked, so this one must? That's not actually rational... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute. (was: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64)
#include hallo.h * Andrew Suffield [Wed, Jul 28 2004, 07:16:04PM]: You cannot write a GR to order somebody to do something. That's fundamental to the project structure, and written into the constitution. Get used to the idea, and stop proposing GRs that don't do anything. You can propose what you want. If people in position do not give a f..k about your concern, fire them. We are a community and not their slaves. Regards, Eduard. -- jjFux VIM - verbesserter Vi - Wer hat an meinem LANG gedreht... forcer jjFux: scheis i18n, das müsste vvi sein, nich vim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Andrew Suffield, 2004-07-28 22:20:09 +0200 : None of these other things worked, so this one must? That's not actually rational... Ever heard of the Shadoks? [1] They had this saying: Keep on trying, and you'll eventually succeed. Therefore, the more it doesn't work, the more likely it is to get working. Also, In order to keep the number of unhappy people low, you should always beat up the same ones. [1] Old (as in, 1970's) French cartoon featuring sort-of-beings with a twisted logic. Roland. -- Roland Mas M-x execute-extended-command -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Andrew Suffield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040728 20:25]: On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:00:29PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: === The Debian project hereby resolves: - That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, should explain publicly (via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) the problems which delay this action. This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort. You could formulate it as: That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, is violating the constituion and is warned to follow it. Is that less of a no-op? The developers may issue positions of the day (and this one could be considered as one, as this doesn't try to force somebody to do work, but to say: we would like if this happens). However, whether publically telling somebody what exactly would he should do, would really help to solve the problem, is something different. (Same is true for all other issues in this GR-draft.) So, for me, this GR wouldn't conflict with the constitution, but I doubt very much that this draft is part of solving our problems. Cheers, Andi Failure to conform to the projects wishes would mean the person should resign from his job or get disappointed. He wouldn't be the right representative for Debian if he is acting against Debians will (without giving reasons, which he should have voiced in the GR). The thread of appointing someone else is the only thread Debian has to force an issue. I see nothing (technically) wrong with utilizing that force. MfG Goswin PS: I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the actual GR here, just saying what I read into it. The GR is mood now anyway. The RM team has vetoed amd64 in sarge due to lack of time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:30:28PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a no-op by rule of the constitution. Might be a no-op but its an ultimatum of a sort. You could formulate it as: That the developers in charge for adding the architecture identified by dpkg as amd64, hereinafter amd64, to the unstable archive, is violating the constituion and is warned to follow it. Is that less of a no-op? No, then it's just a lie. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: PROPOSAL: Communication to solve the dispute.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:05:19PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote: Andrew Suffield, 2004-07-28 22:20:09 +0200 : None of these other things worked, so this one must? That's not actually rational... Ever heard of the Shadoks? [1] They had this saying: Keep on trying, and you'll eventually succeed. Therefore, the more it doesn't work, the more likely it is to get working. To respond in kind, Scott Adams labelled this as Unclear on the concept of sunk costs[0]. [0] Example: We've spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
