* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free crap'
Not both.
Which is why
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:39:04PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
If we get closer to the free side, and provide a 100% free main like we
used to,
When precisely was that?
Yeah, it's funny. We never did. Let us say, like we used to promise
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
network
card is using DMA to send away your private data in unaccounted frames.
Of course you
Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion.
Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attacks, but I
choose to read anyway out of responsibility.
If you're sick of
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:14:30PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
network
card is using DMA to send
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the firmware for your
network
card is using DMA to send away your private data in unaccounted frames.
Of course you can. Adding paranoid fantasies to the debate doesn't
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:14:30PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:32:08PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
It often can, though. You can't really tell if the
Le Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:13:25PM +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
Instead of having a long, useless discussion on what Further discussion
means, would it be possible to remove that option?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for any interpretation of what Further
Discussion would mean in
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Let me observe that the fact that several people here think is not
authoritative.
That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 09:12:25PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Peter Palfrader wrote:
I so didn't want to get into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option):
I'm hereby proposing the following general
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 04:24:18PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
several people here think the result of Further discussion is:
Let me observe that the fact that several people
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
Or the vote that I suspect would be a reasonably common one if the vote
allowed it:
I don't want firmware in main, but I want the Release Team to have the
freedom to allow it for Lenny.
As far as the lenny release is concerned, how is this
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:38:56 -0600]:
That does not seem to make sense. Either you have
'none of this non-free crap in the archive ever'
or you have
'the release team downgrades these bugs and includes non-free
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 19:39 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
Hm, no, the impression that I got from this discussion that at least
several people here think the result of Further discussion is:
i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes
ii Do we allow
- Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or rather, I propose the following alternative which incorporates Manoj's
rewritten #2 (in addition to removing the last sentence in #4):
Option 2 (allow Lenny to release with propietary firmware)
- Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what's the problem? We want to provide a 100% free software
distribution. Appearantly we currently can't do that. We're far on the
way, but not there yet. We may have thought we were there, but we were
wrong.
So indeed, people currently
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
have _all_ the possible courses of
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 10:04 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: Yes
Rationale: with further discussion nothing changes. Today RMs are
empowered, by delegation, to decide
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:24 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
The social contract says that the debian system and all its
components will be 100% free, free as determined by the dfsg.
All its components include the unstable suite as well. Why are you
focusing on the release
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but I guess that would be asking too much of you.)
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal of a vote is the ranking of options; this doesn't necessarily
coincide with a clear assessment of the opinions of the population.
Furthermore, splitting non-disjoint options into separate votes has a
myriad of other problems that Manoj has
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please stop this fud. As everyone knows the 'lenny-ignore' tag is not
used to intentionally ignore bugs (and has nothing to do with DFSG
violations or not apart from bug severities), it's used to mark bugs as
not blocking the release. [...]
It seems that
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 11:34 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
So, really, we cannot release programs (firmware) in main
without source code just because a few delegates think we should.
So another delegate (the secretary) should
Bernd Zeimetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Millan wrote:
So do I. If the project grants them an exception to release Lenny (like we
did for Sarge and Etch), I'll support that too.
To start the same bullshit again for the next release, a few days before
the release?
This is exactly why
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could stop the condescending and pedantic tone, that would help
as well, but
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
– unless he is leading a double life chasing
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
threads unreadable anyway.
(If you could
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:24:56PM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
No it's really not funny. I'm sick of reading ad nauseam your opinion.
Then don't read it. Me, I'm sick of reading personal attacks, but I
Given that this is supposed to be the discussion period, I'd like to share
my standpoint regarding one option.
Andreas Barth wrote:
| We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow
| all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making
|
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to
different standards of freedom for its recipients. The properties
“not code that is run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to
be irrelevant to the argument.
Can you re-write this so
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The SC is pretty clear about everything in the Debian
system (which includes image .debs) should be 100% free.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:29:35PM +, Frans Pop wrote:
We've already had two releases where this was an issue and in both cases
it was decided by a GR. Why should the current release team think they
could handle it differently?
Maybe because in http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak
about software. […]
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I would welcome a more permanent answer to the firmware question,
really, I'm not really pleased with the trolls that arise on the
subject prior to every release.
I completely agree with that.
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/tag:lenny-ignore
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it.
The statement that
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with the previous decision-making body, in this
case the
Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release
team decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further
discussion would leave the decision with the previous
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the
DFSG, so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess
of terms. I would agree that could be a good motivation in
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component
is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is
absolutely no doubt about that. But I'm honnestly not sure what
programs or software mean, and in §2 that's
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
hand. No one else
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:54:25PM +, Russ Allbery wrote:
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component
is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is
absolutely no doubt about that. But I'm
Le Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:51:54AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
Is now a good time to propose such a GR?
I really do not think so. As you see, it creates discordance in the Project,
kills the fun, sinks energy, makes people asking for each other's heads and
starts a process that has many dead
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:36:32PM +, Frans Pop wrote:
My very strong opinion is that it is part of the job of being a release
manager to *actively* bring things that can be expected to be important
or controversial to project members to their attention and, if needed,
discuss such
On Monday 17 November 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
The bug reporters see the tags, [...]
Not true by default, only if they subscribe to the BR.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
[SC 1] doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist
within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet
the DFSG.
In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix
of component, software,
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Le dimanche 16 novembre 2008 à 12:43 -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
It’s not that your interpretation of the Social Contract is flawed;
but it is only your interpretation. The secretary is not a superhuman
–
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 09:01:38PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 06:04:32PM +, Josselin Mouette wrote:
First of all, please stop the obnoxious cross-posting. It makes the
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
withdraw them, if they think the scope is too
Please forward this mail to the list, as i am being censored,
No, you are not being censored.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 01:27:26AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Quite right! We need some editorial changes to fix this(!)
Except we already tried that, with the social contract, not long
before madcoder joined. Surely no-one joining in 2005 could be
ignorant of what SC 1 applies to, given all the
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081117 00:27]:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:17:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Given that no GR has been passed to specifically override the release team
decision, I think it's fairly clear that a vote of further discussion
would leave the decision with
53 matches
Mail list logo
