Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, On 23.11.23 03:16, Bart Martens wrote: START OF PROPOSAL TEXT Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the Product Liability Directive (PLD) The CRA includes requirements for manufacturers of software, followed up by the PLD with compulsory liability for

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 19:16 +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002 > as a separate proposal. Seconded. > START OF PROPOSAL TEXT > > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the > Product Liability Directive

Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

2023-11-22 Thread Bart Martens
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 06:46:06PM +, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 09:28, Bart Martens wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:14:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > I feel like we're getting trapped by big corp and their lobbying > > > power, and we need to use

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread Bill Allombert
Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens a écrit : > > The Debian project asks the EU to not draw a line between commercial > and non-commercial use of FOSS. But the EU already does, all the time, really. This is simply not realistic. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread 陳昌倬
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002 > as a separate proposal. seconded > > START OF PROPOSAL TEXT > > Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the > Product Liability

Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

2023-11-22 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 09:28, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:14:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > I feel like we're getting trapped by big corp and their lobbying > > power, and we need to use stronger words. > > Probably in a different way. I'd rather prefer Debian to

Re: call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread 陳昌倬
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Bart Martens wrote: > Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002 > as a separate proposal. seconded -- ChangZhuo Chen (陳昌倬) czchen@{czchen,debian}.org Key fingerprint = BA04 346D C2E1 FE63 C790 8793 CC65 B0CD EC27 5D5B

call for seconds - separate proposal text for 2023/vote_002

2023-11-22 Thread Bart Martens
Hello, I hereby welcome seconds for adding this text to 2023/vote_002 as a separate proposal. START OF PROPOSAL TEXT Debian Public Statement about the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and the Product Liability Directive (PLD) The CRA includes requirements for manufacturers of software, followed up

CRA is effectively a "law", was Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Ilu
Since this error comes up again and again on this list: The CRA is a "Regulation" (look at the long title: "REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020"), in effect a

Re: Changing supermajority requirements

2023-11-22 Thread Nilesh Patra
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:29:36AM +, Bill Allombert wrote: > Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem > > excessive to me: > > > > Constitution changes: > > > > +--- > > | 4.1.2: Amend this

Re: Changing supermajority requirements

2023-11-22 Thread Bill Allombert
Le Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:57AM +0100, Ansgar a écrit : > Hi, > > the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem > excessive to me: > > Constitution changes: > > +--- > | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. > | [...] > | 5.1.5.3: A

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 09:05:26AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Excuse me to insist with vocabulary, but since you've use the word "law" 6 > times above: the EU isn't a state or a nation, and doesn't make laws. We're > talking about "directives", that eventually will be implemented as laws in >

Re: Changing supermajority requirements

2023-11-22 Thread Jerome BENOIT
Hello Ansgar, On 22/11/2023 11:00, Ansgar wrote: Constitutional changes to my country's constitution only require a 2:1 majority. What is your country ? Best, Jerome -- Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calcu...@rezozer.net AE28 AE15

Re: Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

2023-11-22 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Sun, 2023-11-19 at 23:21 +, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at > this point: Elbrus spotted a typo, fixed below - that's the only change, "taking taking" -> "taking" in the second paragraph - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 04:54:30PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Bill Allombert dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100]: > > Dear Debian voters, > > > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > > only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary

Changing supermajority requirements

2023-11-22 Thread Ansgar
Hi, the Constitution has several supermajority requirements that seem excessive to me: Constitution changes: +--- | 4.1.2: Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority. | [...] | 5.1.5.3: A Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority for its supersession. [...] +---

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Ansgar
Hi, On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 16:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > At this point, and in part given that GR 2021_003 introduced time > limits, I think the GR process might produce the swiftest results, > and > it will yield the best legitimacy-wise (i.e. the whole project is > invited to debate and

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:37:54AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:09PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Dear Debian voters, > > > > While Debian has stakes in the CRA, and should issue a statement if > > only to show we exists, I am quite sure that a GR is not necessary

Re: Call for vote: public statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"

2023-11-22 Thread Bart Martens
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:14:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/20/23 00:21, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at > > this point: [...] > > Thanks a lot for taking the time to word out things this way. > > However, I really think

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Sébastien Villemot
Le mercredi 22 novembre 2023 à 09:05 +0100, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 11/21/23 22:26, Bill Allombert wrote: > > I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we > > never > > did used the GR process for issuing a position statement. > > > > The DPL could delegate to a

Re: This does not have to be a GR

2023-11-22 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 11/21/23 22:26, Bill Allombert wrote: I note that this is not the first law proposal that impact Debian and we never did used the GR process for issuing a position statement. The DPL could delegate to a group of people knowledgeable in EU law to draft a statement that is congruent with the