Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

First of all, thanks everyone for working on this. It's much needed. On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:22:39PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > Do we need to recommend one above the other? I'd rather use some short > explanation per installer to help the user choose. My main concern is that users should

Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote: > In case there should be consensus about requiring the TC chair > to provide a casting vote in case of a tie, this would IMHO > require changing the wording of clause 6.3.2. I agree that if we keep the casting vote intact, it needs

Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:49:56AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Now, it's true that we track security issues in a different, and > it's private, which is in contradiction to what the social contract > says: It's also a service to our users and free

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:27:19PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > One of the benefits of eventually publishing all discussions You are not suggesting that we should publish posts where their author explicitly says they should never be declassified,

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for the reply. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:07:43PM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > ] This list has hosted a number of significant discussions over the years, > ] including most of the discussion inspiring the original statement > ] of Debian's

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:19:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Iain Forbidden. Difficult/unclear.[2] > New GR would be needed New GR probably needed. > (or active consent > from

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:57:21PM +0200, Sven Bartscher wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:53:28 +0100 > Ian Jackson wrote: > > > I think it would be best to seek further sponsors for my proposal. > > If you like my

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:47:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > FAOD I assume that this is to be taken as an amendment to Gunnar's, > which replaces the whole text with your text. (Otherwise it would end > up in a separate vote.) On that basis, > >

Re: New amdendment proposal (Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > > > Title: debian-private shall remain private > > The text of the GR is replaced with the following. > > 1. The

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 09:55:52AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > > This message fits your description ("the author is quoting only his or her > > own > > text"), and so it would be allowed *for anyone* to declassify it, without my > > permission. > > Are you saying it should be

Re: Proposed GR: Acknowledge difficulty of declassifying debian-private

replied to your own > text by publishing their mail with all of their text removed and only > your own quote remaining? No, the problem is a message like this: - From: Bas Wijnen To: debian-private Bas Wijnen wrote: > This is very private Yes, I agree. - ---

Re: GR proposal: give up on declassifying debian-private (Re: General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private results)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even > this. That is not how Condorcet works.

Re: Proposed GR: Repeal the 2005 vote for declassification of the debian-private mailing list

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:27:13AM +, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I now also tend to think that we, as a collection of individuals, also need > > some sort of "safe space" to discuss certain things, that can't be public. > > FWIW, that's pretty

Re: Q to all candidates: dropping SC §5

RMS originally worked on a non-free system when building GNU. He has decided that it is possible to run only free software (and shows us that it is true), but not everyone agrees that it is realistic: On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:37:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: I'm particularly concerned about

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

when Ian says I'm going to write up a statement now is agreeing). On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:21:50AM -0800, Bdale Garbee wrote: Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: The only problematic part I see is that he gets carried away at times. That's a very minor issue, and I forgive him, as long

Re: done with consensus decisionmaking, war, rearguard battles [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 12:22:07PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: [CCed to a wider audience, but reply-to and mail-followup-to set to avoid a prolonged cross-list thread.] Sune Vuorela wrote: I have a hard time assuming good faith from people who are at war. Thank you for calling attention

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:36:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: The other option you're proposing here, to prevent them from doing what they want to unless they have a 3:1 majority, reduces to coerce the majority to do what you say they should do, even though they don't think you're right.

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the Secretary, as there's nothing in Standard Resolution Procedures which allows this to be

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: * Why does releasing despite DFSG violations require a 3:1 majority now when it didn't for etch? It's the same secretary in both cases. What changed? I didn't find any of the explanations offered for this very satisfying.

Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:35:44PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: If more people do share your concerns, though, maybe abandoning the poll would be the right thing. If it's only you, I can't but offer all my explanations above, assert that they're true, and hope they can bring us somewhere. I

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

could have been more clear. I'll quote myself: On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:52:34AM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: I don't actually think they are doing that (so continue isn't even appropriate here), Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: I'm confused by options 2 and 5: ... As far as I can see, the only difference between these two options is , and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. That is correct. This is

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:52:02PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: Does the order after FD count? If I'd rank 1 and 5 below FD, with 1 below 5, and later both reach quorum, would my ranking of 1 below 5 be taken into account in the 1-vs-5 run, just as if I had ranked them both above FD, or not?

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:59:12PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Bas Wijnen wij...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:44:49PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: Who will be in charge of stating what complies and what doesn't comply? As usual, everyone judges on his/her own

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny (new proposal)

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 03:39:40PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I'm responding to this by proposing the following alternate option: | The Social Contract is our promise to the free software community. | | Neither the Release Team, nor any selected group of individuals, is | empowered to

Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 06:30:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: But if what you're trying to say is that it's not all your fault as Release Team, I acknowledge that. Then again, it's a really poor excuse to justify

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: Debian won't run on a large fraction of hardware any more. ... To restate the obvious: After the transition a lot of current debian users won't be using debian anymore. So what's the problem? We want to provide a 100% free

Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny

Hi, I second the options quoted below. That's the first one for the pre-lenny GR, and the first one of the post-lenny GR. (While I agree that this is important, I don't think we should set procedures in the SC; if this is to be written down in a foundational document, it must be the

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:56:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: ===Begin resolution text=== The Debian Project has been watching the case around the Mozilla Project's EULA requirement for people wishing to use their trademarks from a distance. This is an issue that has been brewing for a few

Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:28PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] For those of you who're not aware: the Mozilla Foundation is now forcing people who want to use their firefox trademark to display an EULA to their users on first run of the software. It

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt

Hi, On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I have contacted a few people about helping out with the tasks above (and some I plan to contact) but I can't hand out a definite list of people who are willing to help me at

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:57:23PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:22:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Campaigning on debian-vote *and* canvassing for help? Is this really what aj meant by summarise their plans for their term

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:16:15PM +, MJ Ray wrote: there are claims like the limit is a convention and a convention *is* proper for this kind of thing. The fact that it is not totally respected is, IMO, not a problem, since it usually is. -- Wouter Verhelst

Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2008: Marc Brockschmidt

Hi Marc, On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:40:11AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: I would like to point out that I had already resolved not to run for DPL this time due to the small amount of free time available to me in the next year. I will *not* make being DPL my top priority in the next

Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC chairmanship

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 08:31:12PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: Yes, that too. :-) But as I wrote, for the 50% situation, there is a reason we want that. We want to say there are more people in favour than against. With the supermajority, we want to say

Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC chairmanship

16, 2008 at 02:38:05AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: On ven, 2008-02-15 at 22:49 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense

Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC chairmanship

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not require 'X + 1', since the electorate is so small anyway; I don’t understand why the previous

Re: electing multiple people

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But if there is such an situation and there is heated disagreement outside of this body, how would having only one side of that in the body help? That would only make a body supposed

Re: Social committee, legislature, sanctioning

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:54:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: The tech-ctte is the example that I think the soc-ctte is partly modelled after. It works pretty well and handles internal disagreements, but it's aided in that by the fact that the questions are very technical and voting is used

Social committee, legislature, sanctioning (was: Re: electing multiple people)

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:22:41AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: It's not about opinions. It's about people. The problem most often materializes when there are heated opinions, but the fundamental problem is when people can't work together with mutual respect. If you end up with people who