Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Gunnar Wolf]

Steve Langasek dijo [Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:53:02PM -0700]:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> > > with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> > > with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly 
> > > on
> > > crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote.
> 
> > You are saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the outcome 
> > of the first GR, they should start a second GR that repeals the first GR
> > and replaces it with something better as soon as the results of the 
> > first GR are posted.
> 
> Not exactly.  I'm saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the
> outcome of the first GR, *and believe it could be overturned with a better
> worded option*, they should start a second GR.

Cfr. the three votes on declassifying debian-private:

https://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_002
https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_002
https://www.debian.org/vote/2016/vote_004

The first vote mandated the declassification of debian-private after a
three year period for "historical or ongoing significance". Eleven
years later, it became clear this mandate was untenable, and a second
GR was proposed to repeal it and set up a clearer set of rules
allowing for selective declassification under a given procedure. This
second GR did not succeed. A couple of months later, I proposed a
third GR, with the original text identical to the second one's. The
third GR had two amendments; the three options were ranked above FD,
and one of the amendments was chosen.

So, yes, a similar procedure could be done WRT any other GR decision
we have so far taken.

Well, except for de-electing a previous DPL whose term has already
finished, I guess ;-)


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)

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:25:50PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> > with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> > with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
> > crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote.

> You are saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the outcome 
> of the first GR, they should start a second GR that repeals the first GR
> and replaces it with something better as soon as the results of the 
> first GR are posted.

Not exactly.  I'm saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the
outcome of the first GR, *and believe it could be overturned with a better
worded option*, they should start a second GR.

> I would rather have one discussion that covers all aspects of the topic, 
> with all options on one ballot, and then have the topic settled instead
> of having an endless succession of GRs around the same topic.

So, the option to overturn with a second GR if the first one is considered
satisfactory already exists (and would exist under any proposed changes to
the system).  How often has that option been exercised?

I think the existing system already gives you the result you say above that
you want.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


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)

[Russ Allbery]

Wouter Verhelst  writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
>>   accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
>>   without having it be sponsored.  These two rules make no sense in
>>   combination (which is probably why the first rule is rarely, perhaps
>>   never, enforced).

> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

Take a look at A.1.1 and A.1.2 and ask what the process is if someone
other than the original proposer notices a logical flaw (i.e., not a minor
error) and wants to ask the proposer to fix it and everyone agrees that it
should be fixed.

In practice, the expedient thing for the proposer to do is to repropose
the same amendment themselves, which bypasses the sponsorship requirement,
and then immediately accept it, and then allow the original amendment to
be discarded due to lack of sponsors.  This is silly, which is presumably
why the Project Secretary doesn't require people do this even though
technically it's required.

The sponsorship requirement only makes sense because of the confusion
between amendments and ballot options; the sponsorship is there for the
A.1.3 case.  I've done some test reworkings of this section separating
ballot options from amendments, and everything becomes more
straightforward and clear (and has other advantages in role
clarification).

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Ansgar]

Simon Richter writes:
> A core component of the operating system we ship is so complex that it
> needs to be maintained by full-time employees. This has effectively given
> the corporation employing these people veto power over our technical
> decisions, because even though the software they ship is technically free
> software, the cost of maintaining a fork is higher than a volunteer
> organization can afford sustainably.

Yes, I agree that Debian can't maintain a custom fork of the Linux
kernel and we practically have to trust employees of the Linux
Foundation like Linus Torvalds to maintain it reasonably.

> The same corporation has also issued a statement on the reelection of RMS
> to the FSF board, so apparently they don't feel the need to be "apolitical"
> in the interest of not alienating "valuable" contributors, so I fail to see
> what we are trying to achieve here.

The Linux Foundation has issued a statement on the FSF board changes?

Ansgar

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:45:29PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> > Debian is a political project that promotes the autonomy of users vis-a-vis
> > large organizations such as corporations and governments. It does this by
> > promoting the creation of free software, and by fostering a community
> > around free software.

> in the 1990s I would have agreed with you, but the world has changed.

> Nowadays a big part of the community around free software are
> large corporations.

Yes, and this caused a massive shift in the power dynamic between users and
corporations.

A core component of the operating system we ship is so complex that it
needs to be maintained by full-time employees. This has effectively given
the corporation employing these people veto power over our technical
decisions, because even though the software they ship is technically free
software, the cost of maintaining a fork is higher than a volunteer
organization can afford sustainably.

We already know this mechanism as "Embrace and Extend", and it is designed
to create dependence. In the past, we have called this out for what it is,
and actively counteracted it because dependence is not in the interest of
our users.

The same corporation has also issued a statement on the reelection of RMS
to the FSF board, so apparently they don't feel the need to be "apolitical"
in the interest of not alienating "valuable" contributors, so I fail to see
what we are trying to achieve here.

   Simon

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Philipp Kern]

On 2021-04-20 12:44, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone 
else

feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.


A single person whom we trust to upload anything to our archive.[1]

If the person thinks there is something left that should be discussed
then there is no consensus, and if a DD is just trying to sabotage
random things in Debian then GR discussion periods are not my biggest
worry.


I mean that we have unilateral access possibilities to the archive is 
kinda bad as well. But there's much less cost to distracting a vote 
process and be obstructionist than it is to upload a compromised 
package. :)


Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Holger Levsen]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
> votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.

I dispute this statement. Some people said that.

I disagree that voting secrecy is (sensibly) possible. Best effort secrecy
is not secrecy, so we should not promise what we cannot deliver.

And then I'm not sure I want secret votes for transparency reasons.


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

If you own several guns but no guitars, you are doing life all wrong.


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)

[Timo Röhling]

* Wouter Verhelst  [2021-04-20 13:50]:

Not sure whether you consider this an issue, but I don't see that as a
problem. There is a difference between "we can't reach an agreement and
therefore decide on a no-outcome vote" (which the default option is),
and "we have considered all the options and decide that a no-outcome
vote is the best result" (which an explicit no-outcome ballot option
represents).


I think the RMS vote was somewhat unique, because (intentional or not)
the options ended up in way that was almost equivalent to asking "on a
scale from -3 to 3, how strongly should Debian as organization react to
the RMS reinstatement".  I would consider the outcome the neutral (0)
option, and FD would have been the NULL option, i.e., "we can't/won't
decide".  If Steve's original intent to have a binary decision for
signing the open letter had prevailed, an additional "no" option would
not have been nearly as useful.

Cheers
Timo

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   ╭╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   │ Timo Röhling   │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1  23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄   ╰╯


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)

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Carter  writes:
> 
> > I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
> > still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
> > think anyone should feel too much pressure right now to come up with
> > solutions, and I'd urge any group of people who are brainstorming on
> > this whether on a public channel or among some Debian friends to not yet
> > propose any kind of GR or anything major like that just yet.
> 
> I'm certainly not in any hurry to do anything like that.  :)  And I also
> expected everyone to not want to get into it in detail until after the
> release is out.
> 
> For the record, because some folks in this discussion have been worried
> that this is about one specific vote or another, here's a (nonexhaustive)
> list of concerns that I have that I think we should fix.  This isn't
> really intended to open a discussion or get into solutions and I probably
> therefore won't respond to more discussion of that right now (I promise, I
> will later and won't propose any surprise GRs).  This is just to give
> people a feel of what some of us mean when we talk about procedural flaws:
> 
> * 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.

I agree; I believe it should be the opposite (i.e., it should reset on
new ballot options but not on modifying already accepted options)

[...]
> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
>   accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
>   without having it be sponsored.  These two rules make no sense in
>   combination (which is probably why the first rule is rarely, perhaps
>   never, enforced).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify?

[...]
> * There's a reasonable argument that using a default option of "none of
>   the above" would be clearer to people who have not participated in a lot
>   of Debian votes but who have experience with other voting systems where
>   that's a more typical default option.

I can understand the issue with FD, but I don't think NOTA is a good
alternative. I think any other language should be explicit about what
the result will be, and what it will *not* be. NOTA does do that, IMO;
it does not clarify that the discussion may restart, and that a new vote
may appear; it just states that none of the presented options are
appropriate.

The default option means "we don't have a valid option on the ballot, we
would therefore like to cancel the vote and possibly do it over"; I
would therefore prefer the default option to state something like
"cancel the vote, possibly restart it" or some such.

>   Also, some folks (not including
>   me, but I do understand) have been unhappy with the plain English
>   implications of "further discussion" for some time and often feel
>   obliged to propose a ballot option that's functionally equivalent but
>   isn't seen as calling for more discussion.

Not sure whether you consider this an issue, but I don't see that as a
problem. There is a difference between "we can't reach an agreement and
therefore decide on a no-outcome vote" (which the default option is),
and "we have considered all the options and decide that a no-outcome
vote is the best result" (which an explicit no-outcome ballot option
represents).

To put it otherwise, due to the nature of the default option, an
explicit no-outcome ballot option is *not* functionally equivalent to
the default option, in my opinion, since the default option means "this
doesn't work, let's not do this and maybe try again", and an explicit
no-outcome ballot option explicitly means "this doesn't work, let's not
do that again".

-- 
 w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Simon Richter]

Hi Eduard,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 08:49:56PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:

> > Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> > political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish

> Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
> discussions.

You can't escape your work being tangled up in politics. Whether you
actively take part is your choice, of course.

> No way for Debian to be just a hobby, just a tech oriented
> project, because EVERYBODY (yes, even you uncle Joe) must be dragged
> into political activities and go the whole nine yards, GOT IT???

At the individual level, if you have the necessary privilege, nothing stops
you from ignoring the politics, but you can't really stop the other
individuals (and corporations).

Debian as an entity absolutely cannot ignore politics, because it keeps
intruding on our work.

We used to have separate infrastructure outside the United States because
the political situation at that time forbade us from exporting crypto-
graphic software from the US, and Debian spent a lot of effort to get this
changed.

The technical work is only a tiny part of what we do as an organization,
and I'd even argue that most of the technical work happens outside our
organizational structures. Pulling a technical matter before the TC is seen
as a heavy-handed approach.

Instead, what Debian does as an organization is *enable* the technical
work, by taking care of political aspects so individual developers don't
have to. Stopping Debian from doing that will not make your tech oriented
hobby less political, because it removes a shield and directly exposes you
to the politics of what we are doing here.

Apart from the "openly" political work, Debian also does community
building, and this, too, enables technical work as it pulls in new
contributors. Handling conflicts within the community is part of that work,
and how we handle conflicts decides who will be future contributors.

Taking a hands-off approach here means leaving contributors to deal with
conflicts themselves, selecting potential contributors for people who
accept that working for Debian includes interpersonal conflict that
distracts from tech work. This, again, runs counter to your intention that
people should (be able to) focus on tech work.

   Simon

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:59:31AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> But K developers could have stopped this, right? (Per 4.2.2.3.) Now the
> constitution feels quite heavyweight on that ("sponsoring a resolution"),
> but I'd be surprised if the DPL would not have taken back the decision in
> that case (4.2.2.5).

There is a whole can of worms around at what times the DPL can make
or take back such a decision.

Can a voting period be varied when voting has already started?
Note that the discussion period of the RMS GR was varied after
the discussion period had already started.

Can 4.2.2.3. be used to force a vote on a varied voting period
when voting is already ongoing?

Can 4.2.2.5. be used to take back a varied voting period when
voting is already ongoing?

What would it mean in practice when either the 2 week voting period or 
the varied voting period ends while the decision on the variation is
on hold due to 4.2.2.3.?

Could 4.2.2.3. have been used in the RMS GR to put the varying of the 
discussion period on hold after voting had already started?

> A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone else
> feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.

A single person whom we trust to upload anything to our archive.[1]

If the person thinks there is something left that should be discussed 
then there is no consensus, and if a DD is just trying to sabotage 
random things in Debian then GR discussion periods are not my biggest 
worry.

> Kind regards
> Philipp Kern

cu
Adrian

[1] ignoring the non-uploading special case

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Philipp Kern]

On 2021-04-20 10:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:

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.


But K developers could have stopped this, right? (Per 4.2.2.3.) Now the 
constitution feels quite heavyweight on that ("sponsoring a 
resolution"), but I'd be surprised if the DPL would not have taken back 
the decision in that case (4.2.2.5).


A single person being able to block consensus of basically everyone else 
feels like opening up the process to unconstructive behavior.


Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Adrian Bunk]

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.

cu
Adrian

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
> with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
> with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
> crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote.

You are saying that whenever there are 6 DDs who don't like the outcome 
of the first GR, they should start a second GR that repeals the first GR
and replaces it with something better as soon as the results of the 
first GR are posted.

Or start a second GR before the first GR has been voted on, as nearly 
happened during your GR due to the shortened discussion period.


I would rather have one discussion that covers all aspects of the topic, 
with all options on one ballot, and then have the topic settled instead
of having an endless succession of GRs around the same topic.


cu
Adrian

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:37:01PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Simon,

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> > Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> > project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> > FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> > Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and
> > political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?
> 
> Debian is a political project that promotes the autonomy of users vis-a-vis
> large organizations such as corporations and governments. It does this by
> promoting the creation of free software, and by fostering a community
> around free software.
>...

in the 1990s I would have agreed with you, but the world has changed.

Nowadays a big part of the community around free software are
large corporations.

The member list of the Linux Foundation[1] goes from Microsoft and 
Oracle through BlackRock and Goldman Sachs to Facebook and Uber.

Recent Debconf sponsors included companies like Microsoft, IBM,
Google and Amazon. And AFAIK every one of these companies employs
at least one DD whose job includes paid work to make modifications
to Debian that benefit the company.

>Simon

cu
Adrian

[1] https://linuxfoundation.org/en/join/members/

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Russ Allbery]

Jonathan Carter  writes:

> I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
> still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
> think anyone should feel too much pressure right now to come up with
> solutions, and I'd urge any group of people who are brainstorming on
> this whether on a public channel or among some Debian friends to not yet
> propose any kind of GR or anything major like that just yet.

I'm certainly not in any hurry to do anything like that.  :)  And I also
expected everyone to not want to get into it in detail until after the
release is out.

For the record, because some folks in this discussion have been worried
that this is about one specific vote or another, here's a (nonexhaustive)
list of concerns that I have that I think we should fix.  This isn't
really intended to open a discussion or get into solutions and I probably
therefore won't respond to more discussion of that right now (I promise, I
will later and won't propose any surprise GRs).  This is just to give
people a feel of what some of us mean when we talk about procedural flaws:

* 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.

* Calling for votes is even more of a disaster for Technical Committee
  votes, as we have alas discovered.

* The length of the process is therefore not predictable, which means that
  people can't plan around deadlines for making changes to the ballot and
  instead we get procedural arguments around last-minute changes.

* The constitution reuses the term "amendment" for both changes to a
  ballot option and for introducing a new ballot option in ways that make
  it very hard to understand what some of the rules mean.

* The original proposer of the GR gets weird powers in the process that
  don't seem appropriate and can be abused.

* A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
  accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
  without having it be sponsored.  These two rules make no sense in
  combination (which is probably why the first rule is rarely, perhaps
  never, enforced).

* The constitution says that any place the Standard Resolution Procedure
  is invoked must state what the default option is, but then doesn't do
  that.

* There's a reasonable argument that using a default option of "none of
  the above" would be clearer to people who have not participated in a lot
  of Debian votes but who have experience with other voting systems where
  that's a more typical default option.  Also, some folks (not including
  me, but I do understand) have been unhappy with the plain English
  implications of "further discussion" for some time and often feel
  obliged to propose a ballot option that's functionally equivalent but
  isn't seen as calling for more discussion.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Russ

On 2021/04/19 21:36, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'm helping hash out some ideas in private only because framing the
> problem and brainstorming possible solutions requires a ton of back and
> forth...

I think that framing the problems and noting them while the last GR is
still fresh in our collective memories will be really useful. I don't
think anyone should feel too much pressure right now to come up with
solutions, and I'd urge any group of people who are brainstorming on
this whether on a public channel or among some Debian friends to not yet
propose any kind of GR or anything major like that just yet.

For the next few weeks the project focus is on releasing bullseye. Once
the dust settles on that I think it would be a good time to address the
problems in a structured manner and take it from there. It would be
great to iron out at least some of the usual kinks in the process by the
time the next (non-voting related) GR pops up.

-Jonathan

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Russ Allbery]

Wouter Verhelst  writes:

> Our current processes work best, I believe, if proposals are written in
> the open, so that if people disagree with the proposed texts, they can
> start working on their amendment right away, which is much more
> difficult to do under the time pressure of a GR procedure.

I'm helping hash out some ideas in private only because framing the
problem and brainstorming possible solutions requires a ton of back and
forth and trying to do that initial work on a public mailing list is
exhausting and takes even longer.  My intent is that anything we might
come up with is made public for general discussion well in advance of
being formally proposed for a GR, once it's in sufficiently coherent
shape.

(This is independent of any working group and started some time ago.)

Personally, my interest is in fixing the process around the discussion
period and the construction of the ballot.  The constitution currently
says some things that we've found cause unnecessary problems and weird
corner cases, leaves some things unspecified in confusing ways, and did
not anticipate the widespread use of ballot options and is therefore
hopelessly confusing about roles.  I think those can be cleared up in a
way that will make all GR votes smoother and more comprehensible going
forward.  I had intended to work on this after the systemd vote and then
didn't, which I feel bad about because we just had most of the same
problems again.  It's obviously something that's going to affect any even
moderately controversial GR we have, including on technical topics.

I'm also interested in a secret ballot for all GRs, but I think that's a
separate discussion (and a separate GR) from dealing with the discussion
period and ballot construction process.

I personally have little interest in messing with the rules about how we
do Condorcet, although of course other people might and I will read their
proposals with interest.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
> strategic abuse.

This asymmetry guards against a GR discussion being allowed to continue
indefinitely as a result of a small minority of developers repeatedly
introducing amendments that prolong the discussion period.

Whether malicious or not, I think this is important to guard against.

IMHO, it's better to have a vote quickly on a limited set of GR options,
with the possibility of a second GR if there is sufficient dissatisfaction
with the first GR outcome, than to have community energy spent endlessly on
crafting a perfect set of options before we take a vote.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


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)

[Eduard Bloch]

Hallo,
* Simon Richter [Mon, Apr 19 2021, 06:37:01PM]:

> Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
> political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish

Catch 22?

Sorry, by your definition there is no way to escape from political
discussions. No way for Debian to be just a hobby, just a tech oriented
project, because EVERYBODY (yes, even you uncle Joe) must be dragged
into political activities and go the whole nine yards, GOT IT???

Do you want to chase all people who don't CARE about "f*k t* Na*s"
slogans (or whatever the current opposite is) out of Debian community?

*justfacepalming*,
Eduard.

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Sam,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:58:51AM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Certainly in the systemd process there were a number of short comings
> that came to light that are worth improving:
> 
> 1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
> introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
> strategic abuse.
> 
> 2) The fact that a single person ends up calling for a vote has become
> problematic in three important Debian elections now--one on the TC and
> and two GRs.

I don't think this is necessarily a problem, provided that the rules for
calling for vote vis-a-vis discussion time are reasonable.

(I don't think they are, currently)

> 3) It seems like we could do better surrounding discussion time
> management.
> 
> 4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
> votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.
> 
> None of these would have made the decision different, but I think they
> would together have improved the process.
> 
> However, I don't think any of the above needs a working group.

I agree with this. In my opinion, all historic attempts to create a
ballot through a working group or something similar have failed
miserably.

Our current processes work best, I believe, if proposals are written in
the open, so that if people disagree with the proposed texts, they can
start working on their amendment right away, which is much more
difficult to do under the time pressure of a GR procedure.

-- 
 w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Sam Hartman]

> "Theodore" == Theodore Ts'o  writes:

Theodore> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
>> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
>> this > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested
>> in such > non-technical affairs.
>> 
>> The vote in fact shows the opposite.  That interpretation of the
>> result would be true if the majority of people voted for that as
>> their first preference. They did not: it was the most-agreed upon
>> preference between two ideologically opposite factions. The
>> majority of voting DDs expressed a strong preference one way or
>> the other.

Theodore
pppTheodore> The division was not caused by our decision making
Theodore> process; it was caused by the fact that this was naturally
Theodore> a question for which there was nothing like unaminity
Theodore> amongst the voting members.

Theodore> It is unclear that any change in our voting procedures
Theodore> could have made things any better.

Certainly in the systemd process there were a number of short comings
that came to light that are worth improving:

1) The person who introduces a GR is treated differently than anyone who
introduces an amendment in ways that are odd, and are subject to
strategic abuse.

2) The fact that a single person ends up calling for a vote has become
problematic in three important Debian elections now--one on the TC and
and two GRs.

3) It seems like we could do better surrounding discussion time
management.

4) It seems like there is an emerging consensus that we want either all
votes secret or to be able to have secret non-DPL votes.

None of these would have made the decision different, but I think they
would together have improved the process.

However, I don't think any of the above needs a working group.
I think it needs a few people to come up with a proposal.
My understanding is that Russ and peb are working on such a proposal.
I've volunteered to help them but so far have only contributed some
questions.

--Sam


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)

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:56:34PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and
> political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?

Debian is a political project that promotes the autonomy of users vis-a-vis
large organizations such as corporations and governments. It does this by
promoting the creation of free software, and by fostering a community
around free software.

We have never been apolitical, because our goals are political goals, and
they have far-reaching political consequences because free software enables
diverse groups to access information technology that would not have access
otherwise, ranging from disadvantaged groups for whom cost is the main
blocker in technology adoption to dissident groups who are reliant on
verifiability and disconnected operation.

In all of this, "our priorities are our users, and free software."

This means we have dual priorities and we need to be smart about
reconciling them. We've seen proposals to open the ecosystem to commercial
software as that would be in the interest of users, and we've seen a shift
towards more complex technology stacks that are all free software but less
accessible to modification due to the learning curve, thus disempowering
users.

Free software isn't created in a vacuum, but by people in the free software
community. While stewardship of the community is neither our sole
responsibility nor are we tasked with it alone, it is part of our core
mission, and we cannot abdicate it without failing to also promote future
free software (in addition to failing as members of the community).

Make no mistake, the quest to have "apolitical" free software is deeply
political in itself: the process that decides which group can establish
their identity politics as default and therefore mark any deviation
therefrom as "political posturing" is itself a political process.

The demand to lower societal standards for "socially awkward nerds" is a
demand to symbolize a political hegemony: the identity of the "socially
awkward nerd" is to be protected politically, at the expense of the other
members of the free software community, therefore at the expense of the
free software movement and free software itself.

   Simon

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:05:20PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
> 
> The vote in fact shows the opposite.  That interpretation of the result
> would be true if the majority of people voted for that as their first
> preference. They did not: it was the most-agreed upon preference between
> two ideologically opposite factions. The majority of voting DDs
> expressed a strong preference one way or the other.

I agree with all of the above.  I also can't help feel that the result
was probably the best one that could have been reached for the project
as a whole.  In which case, the voting system arguably did its job.

The division was not caused by our decision making process; it was
caused by the fact that this was naturally a question for which there
was nothing like unaminity amongst the voting members.

It is unclear that any change in our voting procedures could have made
things any better.

Cheers,

   - Ted

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Julien Puydt]

Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 14:05 +0100, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> > The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on
> > this
> > issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> > non-technical affairs.
> 
> The vote in fact shows the opposite.  That interpretation of the
> result
> would be true if the majority of people voted for that as their first
> preference. They did not: it was the most-agreed upon preference
> between
> two ideologically opposite factions. The majority of voting DDs
> expressed a strong preference one way or the other.

All sides agreed Debian was not the right place to fight on such a
matter.

Let's move on.

JP

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:30:48AM +0800, Benda Xu wrote:
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.

The vote in fact shows the opposite.  That interpretation of the result
would be true if the majority of people voted for that as their first
preference. They did not: it was the most-agreed upon preference between
two ideologically opposite factions. The majority of voting DDs
expressed a strong preference one way or the other.


-- 
  Jonathan Dowland
✎   j...@dow.land
   https://jmtd.net

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 2021-04-19 02:46, Brian Thompson wrote:

Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political



project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of

the


FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether



Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds

and


political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?


I'm very new to the project, but for those who were unaware of this
discussion, it makes the project a lot less appealing to contribute to
upon hearing about it.  It doesn't make any sense for a "FOSS" project
to have any weight whatsoever on political on goings.  To put it
bluntly, political opinion shouting is repulsive, and very
disappointing at best.  I can probably safely say that many people who
are a part of this project already work for the elite IT companies who
push their garbage political agendas all day, every day.  The last
thing people want to do is contribute to a project in their free time
that does the same thing.



Exactly what I'm thinking.
And exactly the reason why I like the outcome of the GR.

Please lets get back to technical issues.

--
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 2021-04-19 08:57, Jonathan Carter wrote:



That's more than just a big assumption, I'd go as far to say that it's 
a

big leap to assume that from that option. Additionally, you're assuming
that that attempts to fix the problems in our voting system would
somehow make us more political? How do you come to that conclusion?
We've had very large technical GRs which have shown significant 
problems

in that process causing huge amounts of pain and frustration in our
community, and it comes up regularly how useful it would be to take a
formal project-wide poll on something.


So how does changing the voting system change the way we come up with
"something" to vote on? It doesn't matter which voting system you are
using if your problem is to decide what you want to vote on.



At the same time, there's often
confusion about what exact vote rankings actually mean. To the point
where a significant people either don't vote at all exactly because of
that,


How do you come to that conclusion? If I remember right we had
40-50% voter turnout, so you think that 30...40% fail to understand
rankings? And out of these none bothers to ask for explanations?
(I know that there were some questions regarding the meaning of FD,
but the amount of participating non-voters in that discussion is
way too low to support your statement).


or their vote actually has a significantly different effect than
what they intended.


Care to explain that?
A voting system works as designed and the Debian voting system is
actually one of the easier systems to understand. Ranking options
is not that hard. Maybe we should educate voters about the voting
system if necessary?


--
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Benda

On 2021/04/19 05:30, Benda Xu wrote:
> I would like to congratulate you for becoming our next DPL.

Thanks!

>> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on
>> the back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in
>> our methods for making decisions. I think that we should set up a
>> working group to specifically deal with voting, polling and
>> project-wide decision making so that we can deal more efficiently with
>> problems in the future.
>>
>> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
>> vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
>> respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
>> free software eco-system grows, and as software gets ever more ingrained
>> in our every day life, the questions and problems we're going to face
>> will become increasingly complex and that we should adapt to be able to
>> deal with those as a project.
>>
>> Can we go ahead and set up such a working group? I'm thinking that it
>> would involve mailing list discussions, video calls, sessions at
>> DebConf, probably at least one GR, research on different voting methods
>> that could be used, voting software, etc. Fortunately, we're not the
>> only organisation in the world facing issues like these and we can make
>> use of some external experts too. Although all of this will also take
>> some time and effort so I'd really like to have you on board as one of
>> the drivers of this project and also others who have a keen interest in
>> this. What do you think?
> 
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.  Such a working group will distract us from
> achieving technical excellence.

That's more than just a big assumption, I'd go as far to say that it's a
big leap to assume that from that option. Additionally, you're assuming
that that attempts to fix the problems in our voting system would
somehow make us more political? How do you come to that conclusion?
We've had very large technical GRs which have shown significant problems
in that process causing huge amounts of pain and frustration in our
community, and it comes up regularly how useful it would be to take a
formal project-wide poll on something. At the same time, there's often
confusion about what exact vote rankings actually mean. To the point
where a significant people either don't vote at all exactly because of
that, or their vote actually has a significantly different effect than
what they intended.

Why would anyone in their right mind be apposed to fixing these problems!?

-Jonathan

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Yao Wei (魏銘廷)]

Hi,

> Benda Xu  於 2021年4月19日 11:40 寫道：
> 
> The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
> issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
> non-technical affairs.  Such a working group will distract us from
> achieving technical excellence.
> 

Most of the non DPL-electing GRs are at risk of tearing Debian Project apart.  
And IMO this is the least dangerous option.  It's not because we are not 
interested in non-technical affairs.

Yao Wei

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Benda Xu]

Hi Jonathan,

Jonathan Carter  writes:

> On 2021/04/18 13:20, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> The details of the results are available at:
>> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
>
> Thanks for all your work on this vote, I believe that you made excellent
> decisions as project secretary and it seems that all views that were
> expressed on -vote were well represented in the vote, so again, I think
> I can talk on behalf of the project here when I'm giving special thanks
> for your work.

I would like to congratulate you for becoming our next DPL.

> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on
> the back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in
> our methods for making decisions. I think that we should set up a
> working group to specifically deal with voting, polling and
> project-wide decision making so that we can deal more efficiently with
> problems in the future.
>
> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
> vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
> respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
> free software eco-system grows, and as software gets ever more ingrained
> in our every day life, the questions and problems we're going to face
> will become increasingly complex and that we should adapt to be able to
> deal with those as a project.
>
> Can we go ahead and set up such a working group? I'm thinking that it
> would involve mailing list discussions, video calls, sessions at
> DebConf, probably at least one GR, research on different voting methods
> that could be used, voting software, etc. Fortunately, we're not the
> only organisation in the world facing issues like these and we can make
> use of some external experts too. Although all of this will also take
> some time and effort so I'd really like to have you on board as one of
> the drivers of this project and also others who have a keen interest in
> this. What do you think?

The winning option "Debian will not issue a public statement on this
issue" implies that the majority of DDs is not interested in such
non-technical affairs.  Such a working group will distract us from
achieving technical excellence.

Yours,
Benda

RE: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Brian Thompson]

> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether> Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and> political opinions can work together on making a good distribution? I'm very new to the project, but for those who were unaware of this discussion, it makes the project a lot less appealing to contribute to upon hearing about it.  It doesn't make any sense for a "FOSS" project to have any weight whatsoever on political on goings.  To put it bluntly, political opinion shouting is repulsive, and very disappointing at best.  I can probably safely say that many people who are a part of this project already work for the elite IT companies who push their garbage political agendas all day, every day.  The last thing people want to do is contribute to a project in their free time that does the same thing. -Brian Thompson  Best regards, Brian Thompson From: Donald NorwoodSent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 5:54 PMTo: Adrian Bunk; debian-devel@lists.debian.orgSubject: Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result) On 4/18/21 9:56 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether> Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and> political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?Excellent question. From some online postings I have read and emails I have received on thetopic, there is a growing consensus that Debian on a whole is movingfrom a quality software development organization to yet another angrypolitical leveraging machine. So on this I would say perhaps that is a valid question to put forth andto seek dialog and answers on. People on the outside are confused on thematter, and I would put forth maybe a few on the inside as well.  Be well, -Donald-- ---⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Donald Norwood⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ B7A1 5F45 5B28 7F38 4174⠈⠳⣄ D5E9 E5EC 4AC9 BD62 7B05  

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Donald Norwood]

On 4/18/21 9:56 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
> project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
> FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
> Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and
> political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?
Excellent question.

From some online postings I have read and emails I have received on the
topic, there is a growing consensus that Debian on a whole is moving
from a quality software development organization to yet another angry
political leveraging machine.

So on this I would say perhaps that is a valid question to put forth and
to seek dialog and answers on. People on the outside are confused on the
matter, and I would put forth maybe a few on the inside as well.


Be well,

-Donald
-- 
--
-
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Donald Norwood
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ B7A1 5F45 
5B28 7F38 4174
⠈⠳⣄ D5E9 E5EC 
4AC9 BD62 7B05



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 14:04 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> 
> However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on the
> back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in our
> methods for making decisions. I think that we should set up a working
> group to specifically deal with voting, polling and project-wide
> decision making so that we can deal more efficiently with problems in
> the future.

Except for making a vote secret, what do you think the problem is?
Debian has an excellt voting system, why should we change that? Because some
people don't like the outcome? That is what happens when people are allowed
to vote. Live with it.


> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
> vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
> respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
> free software eco-system grows, and as software gets ever more ingrained
> in our every day life, the questions and problems we're going to face
> will become increasingly complex and that we should adapt to be able to
> deal with those as a project.

Adapt so its harder to vote for things that people might not like?


> Can we go ahead and set up such a working group? I'm thinking that it
> would involve mailing list discussions, video calls, sessions at
> DebConf, probably at least one GR, research on different voting methods
> that could be used, voting software, etc. Fortunately, we're not the
> only organisation in the world facing issues like these and we can make
> use of some external experts too. Although all of this will also take
> some time and effort so I'd really like to have you on board as one of
> the drivers of this project and also others who have a keen interest in
> this. What do you think?

Experts for what? Designing voting systems that prefer one option over other
options? 

Your plan is a major a waste of time and will result in a lot of useless
discussions and anger. It is not what the project needs. And if you'd have
suggested that earlier, I'd have ranked you way below FD in the DPL election.

If it is possible to vote, there might be results people don't like. If
people are not allowed to vote, its not Debian anymore. We have an excellent
way of voting and actually a good amount of allowed voters take part in
votes. Please take these useless discussions elsewhere, lets make a release.


-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 02:04:38PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>...
> While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
> vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
> respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
> free software eco-system grows, and as software gets ever more ingrained
> in our every day life, the questions and problems we're going to face
> will become increasingly complex and that we should adapt to be able to
> deal with those as a project.

Is it really still an open question whether Debian is a political
project that has opinions on non-technical topics like the board of the
FSF or the legal status of Taiwan, Palestine and Kosovo, or whether
Debian is a technical project where people of diverse backgrounds and
political opinions can work together on making a good distribution?

The last 3 weeks will be the new normal if we ignore the result of the
current GR, and I doubt a working group exchanging the same arguments
and insults again will bring any benefits.

> Can we go ahead and set up such a working group? I'm thinking that it
> would involve mailing list discussions, video calls, sessions at
> DebConf, probably at least one GR, research on different voting methods
> that could be used, voting software, etc.

There are various topics around the technicalities of voting that have
emerged in the past weeks. There is a fair chance to get these discussed 
on debian-vote and voted fairly quickly without too much bad blood.

> Fortunately, we're not the
> only organisation in the world facing issues like these and we can make
> use of some external experts too.
>...

What kind of experts?

Experts in promoting the opinions of the affluent IT elites in the US,
or experts in how to manage the different cultural backgrounds and
opinions in an international project?

A real problem is that many of the groups who claim to promote diversity 
are actually 100% people living in the US IT filter bubble.

On technical issues around voting I think we have enough competent 
people to discuss them without external help.

> -Jonathan

cu
Adrian

Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)

[Jonathan Carter]

Hi Kurt

On 2021/04/18 13:20, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> The details of the results are available at:
> https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002

Thanks for all your work on this vote, I believe that you made excellent
decisions as project secretary and it seems that all views that were
expressed on -vote were well represented in the vote, so again, I think
I can talk on behalf of the project here when I'm giving special thanks
for your work.

However, I don't think we're quite in a position to pat ourselves on the
back here. This vote has once again highlighted some problems in our
methods for making decisions. I think that we should set up a working
group to specifically deal with voting, polling and project-wide
decision making so that we can deal more efficiently with problems in
the future.

While this vote caught a lot of heat, essentially it's quite a trivial
vote. Ultimately it had become a question of if and how we should
respond to an external situation. I think that as Debian grows, as the
free software eco-system grows, and as software gets ever more ingrained
in our every day life, the questions and problems we're going to face
will become increasingly complex and that we should adapt to be able to
deal with those as a project.

Can we go ahead and set up such a working group? I'm thinking that it
would involve mailing list discussions, video calls, sessions at
DebConf, probably at least one GR, research on different voting methods
that could be used, voting software, etc. Fortunately, we're not the
only organisation in the world facing issues like these and we can make
use of some external experts too. Although all of this will also take
some time and effort so I'd really like to have you on board as one of
the drivers of this project and also others who have a keen interest in
this. What do you think?

-Jonathan