Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]: Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they think, and hold another vote. Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-( Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org — Oh, George, you didn't jump into the river. How sensible of you! -- Mrs Banks in “Mary Poppins” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]: This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said: If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people might be feeling that way. Dato didn't sign his proposal mail, so this can't be a valid GR proposal, AIUI. All I meant was that I second the feeling, rather than a formal proposal. ACK, I wasn't formally proposing a vote. I could've been more clear about that, but I tend to forget things may not always be as obvious on the other side of the screen. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: David Bowie - John, I'm only dancing -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to get it voted on? I can't believe I'm reading this. You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. (On the other hand, I think seconding is different, and that it should be okay to second stuff even just because I think it's good for it to be on the ballot.) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Que no te vendan amor sin espinas -- Joaquín Sabina, Noches de boda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]: You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one unit unless painstakingly necessary. This is, of course, my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree. Also, I'll probably won't be interested in discussing this any further, so please don't take my lack of answer to your next message as lack of disagreement. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Vanessa-Mae - Doun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:55:36 -0800]: I wish we could have in the world of GNU/Linux one, just one, please--just one--distribution which really took free software as of cardinal importance. I don't like the wording of your sentence, but I'll point out that gNewSense already exists, and that then, even Stephen Fry (let alone Richard Stallman) would endorse you. http://www.gnewsense.org/ -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: La Buena Vida - No lo esperaba de mí -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:09:45 -0800]: Thomas Weber thomas.weber.m...@gmail.com writes: Am Montag, den 15.12.2008, 10:06 + schrieb Steve McIntyre: I've been talking with Manoj already, in private to try and avoid flaming. I specifically asked him to delay this vote until the numerous problems with it were fixed, and it was started anyway. I'm *really* not happy with that, and I'm following through now. Uh, I don't quite get this: you shortened the discussion period, but at the same time asked the secretary to delay the vote? Where did Steve shorten the discussion period? He did so for the *other* vote, but I haven't seen a thread where he did for this one. (I may have just missed it.) http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00046.html, no? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Will you just stand still? -- Luke Danes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: No acknowledgement received for vote on Lenny release GR
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:15:28 +0100]: Could someone please check why I've not received any acknowledgement of my vote? Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:23:56 +0100 Message-Id: 200812141224.06403.elen...@planet.nl I can't check, but I can tell you that apparently nobody else has received an ack either: http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/gr_lenny/index.html (At least I haven't either.) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Julio Bustamante - La especie de Tom Sawyer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:29 +0200]: The only constitutional way to get rid of the Secretary without his consent is for the DPL to fail to reappoint him, which would automatically mean (since I'm assuming that the Secretary does not go willingly) that a replacement Secretary is selected by the Developers by way of General Resolution. I'm not sure when the current term of the Secretary expires, but I'd guess it'd be some time after the next DPL election. What does §4.1.7 mean, then? Can't it be read to mean that the DPL may appoint a new Secretary not at end of term, if there's disagreement between them? Thanks, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Rebekah del Rio - Llorando -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
(Bcc: -project) They say forking in a Free Software project should only be done as a last resort, but that it is important that such option is always available. It's very sad we've come to this point with this vote... If you feel disenchanted about how the Lenny GR has been handled and, in particular, with the resulting ballot and its 7 options, I invite you to participate in this unofficial vote and, optionally, to show your discontent by ranking Further Discussion above all other options in the official vote (see below about this). If you've voted already, you can recast your vote as usual. This is an unofficial vote, but at least it will be easy to vote in. If FD wins in the official one, and depending on the participation on both, it may also give us a good approximation about what the developers think with respect to releasing Lenny. Ballot == Please vote by writing numbers between 1 and 2 in the boxes below, etc., and send your PGP-signed ballot to adeodato-gr_lenny_u...@debian.org (M-F-T and Reply-To set). - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Received ballot count and other statistics will show up at: http://master.debian.org/~adeodato/gr_lenny_unof/ Votes are processed and acknowledgements sent 2 minutes past each our. Vote key The temporary key used for this vote is 0x93544AEA (attached). You can encrypt your vote using this key, and replies will be sent signed with it (and encrypted to yourself). Voting period = Voting in this unofficial setup will close at the same time as in the official gr_lenny vote. At the moment, that's 2008-12-21 23:59 UTC, but there are signs that this could be a mistake and the date should be 2008-12-28 instead. If the official date changes, so will the unofficial one. Text for Choice 1 = The Debian Project unofficially decides that we should not release Lenny until all the bugs reported against linux-2.6 regarding firmware blobs without source that were reported before 2008-11-01 are resolved and the fix available in Lenny. Text for Choice 2 = The Debian Project unofficially states their agreement with the use of the lenny-ignore tag that the release team has applied to bugs in the linux-2.6 package. On ranking FD first in the official vote Participating in this vote should not imply that you are in disagreement with the official ballot: maybe you are not, but understand that other people are, and decide to participate in the unofficial vote nevertheless. Because of this, I recommend that you rank FD as your first choice in the official vote if you want to say, This ballot is not right. Here are some foreseeably frequent asked question about this procedure: Q: If I rank FD over option #5, won't option #1 be more likely to win? A: Not if you rank option #5 over option #1, even if both are below FD. Then, in the run between #5 and #1, your vote will go for #5 as if it had been above FD. Q: What if #5 does not reach quorum? A: If #5 does not reach quorum, it's hopefully because all people who would have ranked #5 above FD have ranked #5 *and* #1 below FD. In that case, FD will beat #1 if #5 was meant to beat #1 without the protest. Q: If FD wins, what happens? Can Lenny release, or do we have to redo the vote? A: Some people think that FD would mean that the release team is not overruled in their decision to proceed with releasing Lenny, and hence they'd be allowed to continue in this intent. For the details, please read: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00244.html Q: Doesn't ranking FD first make less likely that the 3:1 options reach quorum? A: Yes, certainly. If you liked these proposals, this is a price you have to pay for making your discontent heard. However, sometime after these votes we should hold separate votes for each orthogonal issue, eg. choice #6 and, if there's enough interest, #4. The discontent of the day, -- Adeodato Simó -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) mQGiBElGP6gRBACvP6WM7imDVViHnnZiRx2q5jzG/R3IKVWgRFU7GChVP3VoPzqm hT44iw2shexiro5gAKDnjNlL+HsQDDN56PJ51MLmPOTVHhztKV3+o+GAjUZI6nXA KC0w1sDi4InYLknoROAg4Vsp9O1BIAFOc7GahvJJ/Q9PanWO7P9iegI2DwCguMeh 58SE8qNIFbNCVXyh1szqq48D/ijKBBKBCCk/8syzALbJOxa9gDZRP5zHWYOcj6UO qUxaAc/T+eyUONxrN46MEca1n1oAcBYNJykkMzhFXnbx8tqkCe+YXlHcokHZtXi7 gB4bluX7XNDnPdSzc56u935q/jv+aFsdUPLgkqyjYpS4ROUjqpFlXIaKg3b2h1Iz UVWwA/9Xp7yD1IxeMFgdSPbsN/uZBEkDzv09P23Ab2SAtpRMJMBAxCmqRzcUBPDl TmMZn/IEB5fnG+wdJaeHDsnRuEKgHdlj7DbUBuHVu2tmQWy0Zmw2Vlyubu92luf6 FHayr+rq3vFDNPi+mv3Tatr6grNjsrK2Bx3o/5z4g7PZtgVXqrRATGVubnkgVW5v
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:34 +0200]: But your interpretation is certainly possible. Of course, that just means it's up to the Secretary to rule which (if either) is correct :) Brilliant. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Excuse me for thinking a banana-eating contest was about eating a banana! -- Paris Geller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:23:00 +0100]: How does this help? The only effect of voting FD on the official vote is to play into the hands of those who don't want any firmware support in Debian. That is not true, as it is (hopefully clearly enough) explained in the mail you replied to, section On ranking FD first in the official vote. I don't like either of these choices. So what do I do now? You don't vote, or you vote 11, or you raise your concerns, or you go for a walk. Is up to you, really, because I did the best I could, but it's impossible to please everybody. Main reason is that I don't think the RT has the right to decide whether or not to release with firmware that is, according to current interpretations of the DFSG, non-free. This is a decision that should be made by the project as a whole because that is only thing that is consistent with the way the question has been handled for Sarge and Etch, especially given the fact that the resolutions passed then explicitly limit the exception to a single release. This is a perfectly valid opinion, which I understand and respect. You can read this message of mine from 2008-10-30: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html I acknowledged (thought admittedly very tersely) that such position is valid, and should get discussion, and later a GR. If it is important to you that the release team doesn't use suite-ignore tags on bugs regarding DFSG compliance, then go for it: propose a GR, and let's vote on it (I repeated this idea in the Unofficial GR mail, too). My opinion is that the release team should have the right to that use of suite-ignore tags, and then get overriden by a GR on a case-by-case basis, when people feel the tags have ben misused. But if developers show they don't want for it to work that way, then it is for us to accept that and move on, period. I very much don't want option 2, but option 1 would mean sanctioning the RT, which I very much also don't want to do. The official vote at least _does_ allow me to express my opinion. Hm. Can you ellaborate on what you mean by sanctioning the RT. If you mean to imply that option #1 in the unofficial vote inadvertently says RT should have the right for suite-ignore tags always, no matter what, that wasn't the intention and I don't think it says that. If you don't mean that, then I'm unsure what you mean and would like you to ellaborate. If you dislike the wording of the proposal, and would have liked something that didn't mention the RT at all, well... see above, I'm not perfect and you can't please anybody. (I circulated the draft in some of the channels I'm in, and nobody raised that concern.) IMO we _do_ need the current vote, only it should not have been contaminated with the options re. the release team powers and re. source requirement for firmware. Those issues should IMO have been handled as separate GRs _after_ the question what to do for Lenny had been settled. Fully agreed. (Though up to the first comma, I agree because there was an effort by a number of developers who wanted this vote to happen, not becaue it was needed no matter what, see above. But that way of thinking can of course change via a release team powers GR, to use your own words.) Thanks for increasing the mess we already have. I will personally ignore this additional vote which suffers from the same problem as the official one, namely that it is unacceptably colored by the person who is managing it. Peace to you too. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:32:40 +0200]: On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? Because I liked it better without, and nobody who read the draft drawed my attention on the lack of it, or the importance of it. I'll note that I circulated the draft on a debian channel you're in, and that you were active on it between my posting of the draft, and my sending it. (Not that I'm blaming you, but it's difficult for a single person to get everything right alone, and that's what you circulate a draft for. The assistant secretary also got to read it...) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org He who has not a good memory should never take upon himself the trade of lying. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
come in with a wrapping of sugar. (I don't want to ignore people in my Debian work, and if it ends up being impossible to deal with somebody, I'll clearly let them know.) However, the same way I've made an exercise and considered your views on actions of mine that I felt were right, I'm going to invite you make an exercise and consider what your style may bring onto other fellow developers (even if your points are right), because I know you've felt stressed with interactions with other developers yourself in the past, and it'd be bad to bring to others what you so much loathed. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Vainica Doble - Quiero tu nombre olvidar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]: I believe developers, and particularly those holding key positions, should not ignore other developers even if their concerns don't come ^^ Er, should make an effort not to; I think the difference is important. in with a wrapping of sugar. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Love in your heart wasn't put there to stay. Love isn't love 'til you give it away. -- Oscar Hammerstein II -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
* Adeodato Simó [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:44 +0100]: Well, you'll have to understand that I'm not going to stop doing something which I don't believe to be wrong just because a fellow developer asks me to. I retract this paragraph. It was written in the first pass of the reply, before I my sat on reference happened (don't ask), and later on I didn't realize it no longer applied. Sorryp. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The true teacher defends his pupils against his own personal influence. -- Amos Bronson Alcott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On the firmwares/Lenny vote
* Julien Blache http://blog.technologeek.org/2008/12/14/149: [...] do not vote by ranking all options 1 to 7 [...] With that many options, the votes will end up diluted and who knows what the result will be. [And then he suggests a 312 vote for those who'd agree to it.] Is this really true? I thought our vote methods were robust against stuff like that. If knowledgeable people could comment, I'd be very much interested in a confirmation of Julien's statement, ideally with some kind of explanation. Thanks in advance, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. -- F. Nietzsche -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On the firmwares/Lenny vote
* Pierre Habouzit [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:40:19 +0100]: For example, if half of the people vote for option2 and option4 as '1' and other options below, and the other half of voters for option3 and option4 (and everything else below), then option4 passes over option2 and option3. Yay. Yes, of course. What I'm interested is in the practical differences and implications between 312 and 7123456, eg., which is what Julien was arguing about. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Eric Clapton - Needs his woman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: On the firmwares/Lenny vote
* Julien BLACHE [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:52:39 +0100]: [And then he suggests a 312 vote for those who'd agree to it.] I explicitly did not include a ballot suggestion in my post, so please don't put words in my mouth :) Sorry, honest mistake. I intended to put a paraphrased laben on those brackets, but I forgot, I'm sorry. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Eric Clapton - River of tears -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery [Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:58:07 -0800]: Pierre Habouzit madco...@debian.org writes: This vote is nonsensical, and I'm hereby calling people to rank FD first or to boycott it. This is a practical joke. Please vote FD instead of boycotting it unless you actually want every jot and tittle of Debian to have source and have all DFSG issues resolved before we release lenny. That's what the original proposal is attempting to accomplish, and since the secretary's rulings support their position, it only needs a simple majority. All options that lead to a release of lenny without resolving all issues first (other than FD) require a 3:1 majority. FD will be a mess, but as I've previously posted, I believe that means that we fail to override a delegate decision and hence the release of lenny proceeds. 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? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let's economize it. -- Mark Twain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
* Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]: Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit : This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded. The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be amended. Therefore I think we should decide on a new wording before the vote instead of letting someone else decide on it. Can the SC be modified without a second vote? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Joaquín Sabina - Los cuentos que yo cuento -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:32:33 -0600]: On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: * Josselin Mouette [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:38:43 +0100]: Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit : This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded. The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be amended. Therefore I think we should decide on a new wording before the vote instead of letting someone else decide on it. Can the SC be modified without a second vote? I don't see why we need a second 3:1 vote on a foundation document after having a 3:1 vote that supersedes part of it. And who is going to modify it if the original vote does not include a wording? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Joaquín Sabina - A la orilla de la chimenea -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:38:19 -0600]: The interesting question is if Peter's options wins the 3:1 majority, but loses to another option on the ballot. I suppose a second vote can then be proposed separately to add the firmware exception to the DFSG. Is only interesting because we're not voting it in a separate ballot to begin with. I don't understand how you're reckoning a second vote could be needed if it passes 3:1 but does not win, and don't accept to run a separate vote first, as Peter requested. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Joaquín Sabina - Flores en la tumba de un vasquito -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
* 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 they are on the same ballot. How does one vote, I want the Release Team to have freedom to use suite-ignore tags, plus I want to allow firmware in main independently of what the Release Team thinks? How does one vote, I want the Release Team to have freedom to use suite-ignore tags, plus I want Lenny not to be blocked by firmware issues even if the Release teams changes their mind and remove the lenny-ignore tags? Thanks, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Peter Palfrader's proposal [1] explicitly said, and I quote: | I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution. I don't think it's acceptable to bundle it up with the ongoing GR, since it was not proposed as an amendment to it. [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00164.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org The problem I have with making an intelligent statement is that some people then think that it's not an isolated occurrance. -- Simon Travaglia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
,[ Proposal 4: Allow release managers leeway to include non-dfsg bits as needed ] | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable release of the | high quality Debian is known for, release more or less on time, and to | minimize the usage of problematic software. We acknowledge that there | is more than just one minefield our core developers and the release | team are working at. | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making | case-by-case-decisions as they consider fit, and if necessary | authorize these decisions. | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) Also, this one should not be voted together with the rest, since it's an orthogonal issue. This not /exclusively/ a solution for the problem for Lenny. We can ask the proposer of this option what he thinks, if you don't agree it should be split out. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Dar Williams - You Rise And Meet The Day -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For our own good: splitting the vote. Thoughts?
I hate complex ballots. They tend to work against the goal of a vote, which is getting a crystal clear assessment on the opinions of the Developers. This vote is at 5 options already, with 2 more underway. I want to propose, and get consensus on it, to logically split the vote in two or three simple ballots, one for each of the orthogonal issues at hand. These issues are (in the order they should be voted on): 1. Do we require source for firmware in main. I don't think we have ever had this vote, and it's about time that we do, *without bundling it with somebody else*. This is Peter Palfrader's proposal at [1]. This vote has two options in it. 2. Do we allow the Release Team to use without a GR suite-ignore tags on bugs for violations of the SC. We haven't had this vote either, and it seems now it would be good to have it. This vote also has two options on it, eg. something akin to Andreas Barth's proposal [2] on one side, and Robert's reply [3] on the other. 3. What do we do for Lenny. The necessity for this vote depends on the results of the two votes above, and I think it should have at most 3 options: delay Lenny until all firmware issues known by some date are solved: (a) allowing source-less, (b) not allowing source-less; or don't delay it. I'm a bit lost as to what I could get done in order to have this go forward, since there have been a lot of seconds for the various options. I do think it would be a Good Thing. I'm CC'ing secretary@ and leader@ to see what they think. I also think throwing amendments is a too cheap operation nowadays. Thanks. [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00117.html [2]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00019.html [3]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00086.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org If you want the holes in your knowledge showing up try teaching someone. -- Alan Cox -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For our own good: splitting the vote. Thoughts?
* Adeodato Simó [Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:17:23 +0100]: I don't think we have ever had this vote, and it's about time that we do, *without bundling it with somebody else*. something -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org «¡Pero si es tan español que debe de tener el cerebro en forma de botijo, con pitorro y todo!» -- Javier Cercas, “La velocidad de la luz” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:31:59 +0100]: But no, you just carried on and ignored my concerns. Thank you, Robert. Let's be more a bit more constructive: you say you act out of alarm by seeing the release team take some decisions for the project. I claim that the Release Team is entitled to this decision, because our job is just copying bits of unstable/Packages.gz to testing/Packages.gz, and the project should get its act together about unstable/Packages.gz. You don't share that view, and hence you come up with this proposal. Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not agree with you in not sharing that view? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - Carlos baila -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Lars Wirzenius [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:42:30 +0200]: ti, 2008-11-11 kello 16:39 +0100, Adeodato Simó kirjoitti: Have you thought for a second, though, that the project as a whole could not agree with you in not sharing that view? It is to determine the will of the project as a whole that we have the GR process. Until then, it's all speculation. I'm just making a point that Robert assumed the project shared his views and proposed a GR accordingly, instead of realizing he could be wrong, and thought of having a different GR first. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - Martín se ha ido para siempre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Robert Millan [Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:20:06 +0100]: But, at the same time, I don't think the Release Team should be allowed to make this kind of decisions unilaterally. Then we should be having that vote, and nothing else, as I already explained in [1], which you ignored. Release Team can decide not to block the release on DFSG compliance issues: yes, no. That's simple enough, and that's the vote that we ought to be having. If the quoted bit was your concern all the time, I don't understand why, on the other hand, we have a vote with 5 options (and counting). We should have the vote I mentioned and, if the answer is no, then have *this* vote. But no, you just carried on and ignored my concerns. Thank you, Robert. [1]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00288.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Family - En el rascacielos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
* Debian Project Secretary [Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:23:03 -0600]: Hi, Hello, ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` I don't think those lines were meant to be part of the ballot text, they were just Robert's opinion. And, since the vote for Etch was 1:1, I think these should be as well: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007 ,[ Proposal 4 ] | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` In this case that sentence wasn't even included in the text by Andreas, where did it come from?! Anyway, same reasoning as above applies. Please amend. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Madeleine Peyroux - Careless love -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian and opinions (was: Re: Proposed vote on issue of the day: trademarks and free software)
* Wouter Verhelst [Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:56:11 +0200]: during the discussion, Ross Burton suggested Obvious typo: Russ Allbery? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Final call for votes for the debian project leader election 2008
* Jurij Smakov [Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:49:22 +0100]: On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:15:36PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: Yes, shortening the voting period has been such a *fun* experiment. I think that using official project announcements as a medium to express your personal opinions is highly inappropriate, not to mention that the message itself, in its sarcasm, is very disrespectful of the entire community which voted upon this change. I, too, think that the quoted sentence above from Manoj is just plain inappropriate in a message sent with the Secreatary hat on. I hopefully won't post more to this thread, though I'd be curious to know if other people think the above is just fine to say on d-d-a, or just don't care at all, or else. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: The Wallflowers - Be your own girl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vote
* Nico Golde [Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:59:42 +0200]: manipulating Rght. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Love in your heart wasn't put there to stay. Love isn't love 'til you give it away. -- Oscar Hammerstein II -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Raphael Hertzog: When to commit into repositories of teams?
* Andreas Barth [Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:28:52 +0100]: as campaigning has started, I would like to know from Raphael Hertzog his opinion under which circumstances he considers it ok to commit into revision control repositories of a team where the person leading the team is active and asks to not commit. #436093 for those following along at home. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Poco después de la guerra civil, un brote de cólera se había llevado a mi madre. La enterramos en Montjuïc el día de mi cuarto cumpleaños. Sólo recuerdo que llovió todo el día y toda la noche, y que cuando le pregunté a mi padre si el cielo lloraba le faltó la voz para responderme. -- Carlos Ruiz Zafón, “La sombra del viento” -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
* Joerg Jaspert [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:41:44 +0200]: Ok, they may hurt the secretary, Manoj will have a fun time listing all of us seconders. :) Nothing prevents him from just choosing the first 5 seconds, or 5 at random, TTBOMK. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Amon Tobin - Kitchen Sink -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
* Josselin Mouette [Thu, 06 Apr 2006 09:04:35 +0200]: While documents using this license are considered free provided they don't use invariant sections, the DFSG don't contain the necessary modifications. Because none are needed. Amendment A would have been 3:1 otherwise. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Create a system that is usable even by idiots, and only idiots will use it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the Debian Project Leader Election 2006
* Anthony DeRobertis [Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:44:46 -0500]: Doesn't 'r' use reply-to and 'L' use Mail-Followup-To? Yes. I don't know him but me, I map 'r' to 'L' (iow, use M-F-T) in folders that contain list mail, so that 'r' always does the most common action, which for lists is to reply on list. This way, when reading mail, I only have to press 'r' always, except when I want a private reply, and since this is a out-of-the-norm scenario, I remember to press another key (incidentally, 'L'). Some people think this is crack, but works for me very well. Mentioning in case somebody wants to try it. :P -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org When all is summed up, a man never speaks of himself without loss; his accusations of himself are always believed; his praises never. -- Michel de Montaigne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question for all candidates
* Raphael Hertzog [Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:06:01 +0100]: (even if I don't think that stockholm would do the best DPL). Is this a statement, or an hypothesis? If a statement, then I feel compelled to ask: who would? -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Andrés Calamaro - Mi Propia Trampa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: no significant invariant sections in main
* Osamu Aoki [Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:22:11 +0900]: Thus, let me propose an amendment to Adeodato Simó's proposal: s/include no invariant sections/don't include any significant contents to prevent our Freedom in invariant sections/ and matching changes to the text. In case it's necessary: sorry, I don't accept this modification into my proposed wording. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Pasión Vega - Lunares signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
* Nathanael Nerode [Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:51:33 -0500]: Hi, So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable, free restriction by the Developers? Really? I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato? The latter. From the last paragraph in my mail: | I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, | when they don't affect us at all. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Loan-department manager: There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona! -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas» signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Minimum standard of decency, was: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* MJ Ray [Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:25:48 +]: to the point where he recoils from the project[3], don't answer Are you deliberately lying here, to make your point prettier, or are you ciberately stating that Andrew lied himself in [3]? 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/01/msg00073.html So long, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Jacques Brel - La Fanette -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* Peter Samuelson [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:39:07 -0600]: - All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the corresponding binary packages are deleted - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own download mirrors. Isn't this addressed by [1] and its references? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00238.html - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages. Can't the Debian Project (by means of its Developers doing so) choose to interpret the license in the clearly the 'make or' is not intended literal sense? I mean, this is sooo please waive me. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A hacker does for love what other would not do for money. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
* Russ Allbery [Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:14 -0800]: If we're going to put all the options on the ballot, let's go ahead and put them *all* on the ballot so that no significant group of DDs can later claim that their opinion wasn't represented by the choices. Latelly, I'm thinking that this (in a similar fashion to Manoj's mail) is the best option. The only problem I see is that Manoj's mail seems to want to attach a position statement to each option, and that can be divisive. I'm starting to see the benefits of a prior vote... -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself, a cold will hang on for a week. -- Darrell Huff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
* Frank Küster [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:41:19 +0100]: Hi, Hi. Just a clarification: the text of the amendment says at its very end: ^ , | Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation | document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to | pass. ` As can be inferred by reading the original text amendment [1], the sentence quoted above was added by the Secretary (it was his duty to do so, if he understood that such majority requirement was applicable). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00060.html Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. -- Josh Billings -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]: The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a rider to be added to the SC, something of the form: - Debian will remain 100% free + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes). Since this requires a modification of a foundation document, the amendment requires a 3:1 majority. I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit that the secretary says this amendment overrules the social contract, since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a 3:1 majority; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all. Or so. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud: after a while, you realize the pig is enjoying it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]: On second thoughts... The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. The amendment intentionally talks only about what Debian is going to do (allow invariant-less in main), which is what most people from outside are interested in hearing anyway, and does not talk about what needs overruling to achieve that. It seems, by my reading of the Constitution, that it's the task of the Secretary to determine who is being overruled and thus what majority is needed. And the Secretary's opinion is: (a) this amendment overrules the Social Contract by putting non-free bits in main, and thus needs 3:1 However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the proper interpretation would be: (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1 How this gets handled, that I don't know, but I can imagine. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Guy: My dad made my mom have a cesarean when she had my little brother. He wanted to make sure he was born in the 1986 tax year so he could get another tax credit. -- http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/002968.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
* MJ Ray [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:24:52 +]: Also, this fails to address the security ban and the forced Transparent downloads/availability. 'Cause this amendment is not about trying to engage in legal-type discussion about whether those two can be work-arounded or not. It's: we regard these two issues as bugs/misfunctions in the wording of the license, but they're non-RC for us and hence are willing to waive them for main. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Guy on cell: Yeah, I mean she's not easy to talk to, because, you know, she'll be like, What did you do this weekend? and I'll say, Nothing, but really I was fucking some other girl. -- http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/archives/003179.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:45:19 +1000]: What documents would this effort actually let us keep, anyway? All the FSF stuff for glibc, gcc, make and so on includes invariant sections anyway, no? Right, FSF stuff goes away. OTOH, I feel utterly ashamed each time I imagine the possibility of the following conversation taking place: «Hey, fellow free software developer, thanks for writing such a cool program and releasing it under the GPL! I also see that you wrote excellent manual for it, nice! Uhm, I see it's licensed under the GFDL, why? Oh I see, these FSF folks that created the GPL told you that the GFDL is a reasonable license for documentation, and you fscking trusted them?! Bad move, guy. No unmodifiable sections you say? Bah, you know we in Debian care more about legalese than about being fair to the rest of the community. Errr, are you suggesting that we dishonor our High Levels Of License And Copyright Compliance and allow invariant-less in main? NO WAY MAN, GO AWAY. You can't relicense because lots of people contributed to it, some of whom have passed away? NOT MY PROBLEM. You'll be recommending Ubuntu instead of Debian from now on? HAH!, AS IF I CARE.» (Or in other words: perhaps it's only me, okay, but I can't help, at all, feel that ripping out of main documentation that their authors intended to be free, and made their best-effort to achieve that, like a form of betrayal. Apologies if this offends somebody, but it's the way I feel it, and can't do anything about it.) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A lie can go round the world before the truth has got its boots on. -- Terry Pratchett signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
* Anthony Towns [Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:47 +1000]:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 04:55:43AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
II. Transparent And Opaque Copies
Section 3 (Copying in Quantity) of the GFDL states that it is not
enough to just put a transparent copy of a document alongside with the
opaque version when you are distributing it (which is all that you
need to do for sources under the GPL, for example).
The way we distribute source and binaries doesn't meet this requirement;
so allowing this seems like it implies a pretty serious change to
how we manage source, one way or another. The way things works at the
moment, we'd have to interpret that as a prohibition (for our purposes)
on distributing compiled GFDL docs, which presumably would (for our
purposes) violate the must allow distribution in ... compiled form
requirement of the DFSG.
Well, this assuming that distributing the source in the same directory
as the compiled form does not satisfy the gfdl's along with (I'm
sure some -legal person will be able to teach me proper English); but
if this is the case, I don't understand why the same distribution
method does magically not infringe the license terms if the section is
non-free as oppsed to main ('cause stuff in non-free has to be at
least legally distributable by us).
IOW, why does this matter for main and not for non-free?
(And if determined that it's not okay, then one can go with the or
state in or with each Opaque copy a [...] location [...] to download
[...] protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document clause.
I'd say a maintainer is taking take reasonably prudent steps if they
include in debian/copyright (1) the upstream url, (2) the url for
ftp.d.o:/pool/sourcepkg, (3) an url for archive.d.o, (4) an url for
snapshot.d.n.)
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Ana Belén - Puerto viejo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amendment: invariant-less in main (Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement)
written by a single person, and free software documentation is often written by a larger group of contributors. And the line between what is documentation and what is a program is not always so clear either, as content from one is often needed in the other (to provide online help, to provide screenshots or interactive tutorials, to provide a more detailed explanation by quoting some of the source code). Similarly, while not all programs demonstrate creativity or could be considered works of art, some can, and trying to determine which is the case for all the software in Debian would be a distraction from our goals. In practice, then, documentation simply isn't different enough to warrant different standards: we still wish to provide source code in the same manner as for programs, we still wish to be able to modify and reuse documentation in other documentation and programs as conveniently as possible, and we wish to be able to provide our users with exactly the documentation they want, without extraneous materials. (4) How can this be fixed? What, then, can documentation authors and others do about this? An easy first step is to not include the optional invariant sections in your documentation, since they are not required by the license, but are simply an option open to authors. Unfortunately this alone is not enough, as other clauses of the GFDL render all GFDL documentation non-free. As a consequence, other licenses should be investigated; generally it is probably simplest to choose either the GNU General Public License (for a copyleft license) or the BSD or MIT licenses (for a non-copyleft license). As most GFDL documentation is made available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, the Free Software Foundation is able to remedy these problems by changing the license. The problems discussed above require relatively minor changes to the GFDL -- allowing invariant sections to be removed, allowing transparent copies to be made available concurrently, and moderating the restrictions on technical measures. Unfortunately, while members of the Debian Project have been in contact with the FSF about these concerns for the past four years, these negotiations have not come to any conclusion to date. --- It's based on Manoj's draft position statement [2] with some notable changes (an explicit why not just say docs != software section, a how can this be fixed section, a what is the GFDL? section, and reordering the major problems). I've put the above draft on the wiki [3] so people can tweak it. Cheers, aj [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00019.html [1] http://bugs.debian.org/usertag:debian-release@lists.debian.org:gfdl [2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html [3] http://wiki.debian.org/GFDLPositionStatement -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Rob Dougan - Furious Angels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private
* Anthony Towns [Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:03:39 +1000]: Hi, On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:10:37PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: If, on the other hand (but this may be better the scope of another GR? I'm not sure, just mention if you think it is), this proposal is accompanied by a change in -privacy policy from now on, namely posts will be declassified after three years unless there is a note in the message disapproving it, the process could become much more straightforward three years after the GR passes. [Swapping the order of your paragraphs.] I'm not really seeing how much more straightforward that makes it anyway? Currently, the team will have to select posts, and then for each of them, contact the author and wait between 4 and 8 weeks. There may be a few posts that include I'm ok with this being made public, for which no contact will be necessary. And posts which receive no comment will be published at the team's discretion. With the change, the team selects the posts, and can publish them without having to contact their authors, unless a do not declassify this post note is present. For these (a certain percentage, X), the team would need to contact the authors if they consider that the post should be published and want them to change their mind. The difference would be that with no reply, it can't be published (with Manoj's amendment; otherwise the team would decide whether to overrule the author). That for the objetive explanation. The interesting question is, what would that percentage X be? And more importantly, what percentage of that X will be posts that the declassification team would consider as necessary to publish? IOW, would the do not publish this notes be abused, or would be they used only for reasonable stuff? Also, though it may seem by the above that this is about making the job of the team easier, it's really about changing private from everything is private unless stated otherwise to the opposite. Hence my initial comment about whether it fits the scope of this GR or not (as Daniel mentions in another posts as well). How do we want private to be? Hrm, I would've thought the opportunity to change your mind later would still be relevant though (in the actually, on reflection, that's fine, make it public or ooops, I should've said not to release that), (Seems to me that changing one's mind can happen any time until the post is declassified, or even later if it is not after three years?) Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: dato (at) the-barrel.org | PK: DA6AE621 A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done. -- Fred Allen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: Declassification of -private
* John Lightsey [Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:40:31 -0600]: For a policy going forward I would have no objections to sharing messages which are not explicitly affirmed as private. I am concerned about this. As the proposal currently stands, to declassify mails sent after the GR is passed, the same procedure as with mails sent before would have to be followed: wait three years, contact authors, wait for response, publish or not. Only in the case where authors choose to explicitly state their consent or disapproval for declassification, would the debian-private declassification team save some work. If, on the other hand (but this may be better the scope of another GR? I'm not sure, just mention if you think it is), this proposal is accompanied by a change in -privacy policy from now on, namely posts will be declassified after three years unless there is a note in the message disapproving it, the process could become much more straightforward three years after the GR passes. I don't feel too strongly about including the above or not, but it certainly seems to me something that should be considered at the same time that the creation of such team is discussed. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó EM: dato (at) the-barrel.org | PK: DA6AE621 Russian roulette in bash: ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Vote for the Debian Project Leader Election 2005
* Wesley J Landaker [Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:23:34 -0700]: On Thursday, 24 March 2005 20:15, Matthew Palmer wrote: Since the voter gets a return e-mail, they'd likely know about it, but if the attacker was clever and threw your ballot in right before the deadline, you wouldn't have enough time to correct it, and would need to bother Manoj to get it sorted out. Yeah, it seems this would be possible in the current system. One way to work around this would be to reject vote e-mails that are identical to ones seen before (say, save a md5sum of the signed portion of the e-mail, *including* the GPG signature block). I've been told on IRC that devotee currently has such a replay-guard mechanism. Perhaps Manoj can confirm, and comment a bit about the implemented safeguards? (Or point to the relevant explanation pages, of course.) -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question for candidate Towns
* Anthony Towns [Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:52:49 +1000]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/12/msg01966.html Hrm. I thought for sure I'd made that clear in that thread, but now I can't seem to find any evidence of it. I'm happy to do the same thing for any other maintainer who is being attacked by someone who's trying to use the BTS reopen command to force a maintainer to do things against their better judgement. That's from the link above. -- Adeodato Simó EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621 Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let's economize it. -- Mark Twain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
