On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 04:38:57PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Andreas,
> Am Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 12:41:17AM +0300 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>...
> > Many parts of Debians Privacy Policy look questionable.
> >
> > For example the rights are not stated, an
Hi,
this email has two parts:
A short question where I would appreciate a "yes" or "no" answer from
all candidates, and a longer explanation what and why I am asking.
Question:
If elected, will you commit to have a lawyer specialized in that area
review policies and practices around handling
On Sat, Apr 02, 2022 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> On 2022-04-02 10:55, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Where does our Privacy Policy[1] describe personal data where Debian and
> > the community team are joint controllers?
>
> > Where does our Privacy Policy desc
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 09:25:46PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2022/04/01 20:28, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Would you commit to something more specific, like that our Data
> > Protection team will reply to debian-project within 3 months discussing
> > all issues mentio
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:57:38PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
> Adrian> Your "services" approach does not work for the non-trivial
> Adrian> cases where Debian might be a (joint) controller of person
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 09:18:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Adrian Bunk
>
> > Who will fulfill the request within the legal limit of one month if
> > a person sends an email to data-protect...@debian.org asking whether
> > Debian is a (joint) controller of an
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:46:42PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Adrian Bunk
>
> > Would you commit to something more specific, like that our Data
> > Protection team will reply to debian-project within 3 months discussing
> > all issues mentioned in the
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 07:40:02PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>...
> This isn't the role of the data protection team, though, any more than
> owner@bugs is responsible for fixing all the bugs in all the packages.
> I'm quite happy to act as a redirector (as per the first part of the
>
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 07:02:15PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> Hi Adrian
Hi Jonathan,
>...
> I'm not sure bringing in the lawyer as a first step is optimal, they are
> expensive and will probably tell us a lot of things we already know. IMHO
> it's better to do some initial groundwork,
The discussion starting in [1] is about privacy in Debian with a focus
on the GDPR of the European Union.
There seems to be a general agreement that privacy in Debian falls
short of the legal minimum requirements at least in the EU.
Even the exact scope of the problem is not clear.
Question
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 06:57:06PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>...
> At least for Taiwan and Kosovo, I think that by holding DebConfs in
> those places and engaging with their self-determined governments we
> have de-facto accepted them as self-determined sovereign nations.
I think that
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
>
> This is a proposal for Debian to issue a statement on an
> issue of the day as given as an
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 11:31:22AM +, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
> have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
> simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots, and also be
> end-to-end publicly
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:38:48PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
>...
> Also, I believe the rationale for this casting vote is the same as for
> the existence of a casting vote in general: to make sure that the TC is
> always able to make a decision, one way or another, and that there is
> never an
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:41:46PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Barak A. Pearlmutter (2021-04-20 16:12:16)
> > Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
> > perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
> > But with all the ballots we can find a
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:10:42PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> > * Barak A. Pearlmutter [2021-04-18 20:30]:
> > > I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
> > &
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>...
>...
> If that arrow had been reversed (which
> could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
> BALLOTS)
>...
On one ballot.
Which brings us back to my suggestion that we should make ranking all
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:53:39PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I noticed no No Last call for votes has been sent for either vote so far,
> > which is usually sent around 48 hours before the end of a vote.
> >
I noticed no No Last call for votes has been sent for either vote so far,
which is usually sent around 48 hours before the end of a vote.
Looking at graphs for past votes (e.g. [1] where one can easily see when
the second and last calls for vote were) we seem to be disenfranchising
between 20
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:43:50PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>...
> That's why we don't get pure donkey votes (12345678).
>...
With an ordered list of options, having the first 7 options ordered
1234567 is the correct choice if you favour the first option and agree
with the order.
Most people
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > Discussing and voting on a change to the constitution to make all votes
> > secret could then be done in 1+1 weeks starting even before the current
> > GR ends, followed by a secret vote on a
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:12:23PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>...
> As for cancelling the vote, I see that as something that's a much more
> severe route and that I won't be imposing as DPL. For that to happen
> there would have to be significant consensus within the project that
> would have
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 20:53]:
>...
> > It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is very
> > different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are
> > a nerd in voting systems.
&g
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
>
> Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption
> that people who voted 1--- were too stupid to do it right.
>...
I am not saying people were stupid.
It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:51:26AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Hey Adrian,
Hi Barak,
> > When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> > there are plenty of votes like
> > 1---
> >
> > It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> > and that their ballot was
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:00:45PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> > worried about the problem that a part of our electorate doe
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
> system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
> each with
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 06:35:52AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>...
> would it be better for a voting system to
> quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the
> middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides
> is always a prerequisite for peace?
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 02:34:28PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 14:07:13+0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> > > deficiency
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> and have a quorum on the number of people that vote
>...
A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote against the
proposal counts for the quorum.
Assuming
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:47:58AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> But the reason for yes/no is the majority requirement. In this GR
> all options have a majority ratio of 1. This means more people
> need to put the option above of FD than people who put the option
> below FD, or the option gets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
>
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation,
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 06:20:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
>
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and the members of the board of the
> Free Software Foundation.
>
>
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 11:21:52PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > This has been discussed before. It did not reset the minimum discussion
> > time.
>
> oh wow, a discussion. and a discussion has the power to change debian's
>
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:56:32PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:38:23PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > > Short and simple:
> > > >
> >
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:08:50PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Am 03.04.21 um 10:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > Craig, if you make this a new separate GR I will be glad to sponsor it.
>
> Do you (or anybody actually) have a idea how to deal best with the old
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 09:33:48AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > Short and simple:
> >
> > TEXT OF OPTION 5
> >
> >
> > Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against
> > Richard
> >
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 03:19:02AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
>...
> i'm down to one package these days, dlocate, which i work on when i'm able. i
> uploaded a new version of it a few months ago - the upload completed OK, but
> the new version never went into unstable. I have no idea why it just
Hi Barak,
thanks a lot for this nuanced view.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:51:59AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>...
> He’s remarkably stubborn in technical matters even when outside his
> domain of expertise and completely wrong.
>...
The traits that make RMS appear awkward are the same
On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:20:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>...
> The open letter does not state that RMS should be ejected from the free
> software movement in general, or from the FSF specifically. Were that
> the case, I would agree with you that it was wrong. Instead, it merely
> states
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 03:38:40PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
> It is an
> infringement of the freedom of association of all other Debian developers if
> we are not able to exclude someone based on the views they express and the
> actions they take.
>
> Labor rights are entirely different
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:38:56PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>...
> We *entirely* have the freedom to discriminate based on
> what people say and do around us. We're not a government. We are *not*
> in the situation where we *have* to support people saying things that we
> believe to be bad,
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:38:25PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>...
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:32:31PM +0100, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> >Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> >> Inclusivity and tolerance does not mean we have to accept every opinion as
> >> equally valid.
> >
> >Equally valid -- no.
>
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 06:39:53PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>...
> It's only a couple of months before the conference that contracts have
> to be finalized, flights booked, and money paid. June 8 was picked as a
> latest possible date for that decision.
>...
The standard procedure for putting
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 05:01:39PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 04:06:14PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:18:16PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
> > Roeckx wrote:
> > >...
> > > The details of the resu
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:18:16PM +0200, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt
Roeckx wrote:
>...
> The details of the results are available at:
> https://vote.debian.org/2020/vote_001
>...
The constitution says:
A.6.3.2.
An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if
V(A,D)
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 07:35:56PM +0700, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>...
> The DPL can encourage an inclusive community and cultural
> understanding. Just creating more awareness about stumbling blocks
> that people face helps because it many cases people simply have no
> idea (e.g. the visa issue
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:06:26PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Jose" == Jose Miguel Parrella writes:
>
> Jose> The question is _what_ would be up for discussion, given it's
> Jose> only a year.
>
> In the discussions here, three items have come up that resonate with me
>
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:30:23AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > What is the big (legal) difference between distributing something
> > from the Debian group on the Debian machine salsa.debian.org, and
> > distributing t
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:57:24AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>...
> The other, critical, factor nobody has raised is time. Why not
> assume good faith here? After all, which is more likely - the FTP
> team are sitting around doing nothing and happy/enjoying the current
> state of affairs, or too
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14994 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Since Debian distributing whatever random people upload to salsa
> > is fine for you, I fail to see the point why you would consider
> > distributing what is i
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:03:00PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14993 March 1977, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > As an example for a rule that does not make sense, recently a member of
> > the ftp team stated on debian-devel that the contents of NEW cannot be
> > made ava
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 09:44:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes:
>
> > The ftp team has repeatedly stated that it is working as a team and
> > that decisions are not arbitrary decisions by individual team members.
>
> > Thi
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Chris,
>...
> I have always instinctively felt such things to be antithetical to the
> spirit of Debian development so should only be applied in extreme
> circumstances. With respect to the frustrations expressed here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:58:16AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>...
> Just as one example, the NEW queue process certainly has some of these
> "Chesterton's Fences" [0] at the moment, and making it more transparent
> and descriptive in places would —
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 07:31:44PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>...
> Whilst I've learnt over the years to accept that terms such as "go for a
> pint" aren't meant to be taken 100% literally and — at least in the UK —
> not drinking alcohol at social
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
first of all thanks a lot for running.
Both of you consider outreach important.
People not drinking alcohol are half of all adults in the world, but
we are under-represented in free software. Unfortunately far too many
people mistake alcohol
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:31:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
html2latexConvert HTML markup to LaTeX markup
Hrm, I don't actually use this. I should probably remove it. The
license is quite definitely non-free. Can
58 matches
Mail list logo
