Re: Withdrawing from DPL election
Simon Richter writes: > On 17.03.19 00:51, Simon Richter wrote: > > > I'd also like nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election. > > As you may have noticed, life happened to me shortly after sending that > mail. I'm definitely not in a position to make a serious bid anymore, so > I'd like to withdraw. Thanks for clearly announcing this. Good fortune to you in dealing with life happening :-) -- \“Your [government] representative owes you, not his industry | `\ only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, | _o__)if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” —Edmund Burke, 1774 | Ben Finney
Re: Debian Project Leader Elections 2019: Call for nominations
Joerg Jaspert writes: > I hereby nominate myself for the DPL election 2019. Jonathan Carter writes: > I hereby nominate myself for the 2019 DPL election. Whether our constitution requires a second or not, I'm grateful to people putting themselves up for the DPL role. So, I hereby second the 2019 DPL election nomination of each of Joerg Jaspert and Jonathan Carter. -- \ “Writing a book is like washing an elephant: there no good | `\place to begin or end, and it's hard to keep track of what | _o__) you've already covered.” —anonymous | Ben Finney
Re: Proposed GR: State exception for security bugs in Social Contract clause 3
Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > While I stand by my GR in principle, I agree with those who have said > that it is not worth spending time on something like this unless it's > going to pass without opposition. Since this GR /has/ turned out to be > quite controversial, I hereby withdraw it. I support your interest in bringing the topic for discussion; I agree that the unfortunate inference you described can be reasonably read in the text of SC §3. While I agree with your decision to withdraw the GR, for reasons others have expressed well, the discussion was short and useful. We need not only GRs that pass without opposition; we can learn from even controversial GR proposals, though as you point out they might quickly become damaging, also. So, thank you for starting this, and for finishing it gracefully. Also: welcome to the project! -- \ “You can never entirely stop being what you once were. That's | `\ why it's important to be the right person today, and not put it | _o__) off until tomorrow.” —Larry Wall | Ben Finney
Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: So, I've given this some thought, and I think I understand why we seem to be talking two different languages here. Thank you for thinking and responding. […] I hope that explains it. If not, I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that I don't believe I can give you an answer which will satisfy you. The issue, as I see it, with this back-and-forth: Your platform doesn't give any concrete idea of what you expect to do differently from other DPL candidates. It talks about vision and focus and atmosphere and many other nebulous things, but says nothing about what you would do differently in the DPL office. The ensuing thread has provided no more enlightenment. This indicates either that you don't have any concrete, specific ideas about what to do differently, or that you don't intend to discuss those ideas publicly with the people deciding whether to vote for you. Whether an individual voter is satisfied with your response, I leave up to the individual. -- \ “Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who | `\ speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” —Ambrose | _o__) Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | Ben Finney pgpKCgupvcNVn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: I will try to be a DPL who will care a bit less about the letter of the constitution or the letter of the social contract, than about the people and the job that needs doing. Can I be more specific than that? Probably, but I'd rather not do that. The above (and the rest of your message) doesn't give any specifics of what you plan to *do* as DPL, though. Yes, I could start picking up specific things that have happened during the past two years and start slinging mud about it in Stefano's general direction, but I don't think that's very helpful. Right. No-one has asked for that. You've been asked several times for the actions you plan to take, and it's distressing to see you avoid the question like this. No, I think a better question would have been do we need another year with Stefano. Please don't deflect the question to Stefano. Regardless what people may think of Stefano, this is a question about you as a DPL candidate. What will you, if elected to DPL, do specifically with that authority? -- \ “It's up to the masses to distribute [music] however they want | `\… The laws don't matter at that point. People sharing music in | _o__)their bedrooms is the new radio.” —Neil Young, 2008-05-06 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vj4i6m5@benfinney.id.au
Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:33:06AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: I will try to be a DPL who will care a bit less about the letter of the constitution or the letter of the social contract, than about the people and the job that needs doing. The above (and the rest of your message) doesn't give any specifics of what you plan to *do* as DPL, though. No, because (as I've said before) there is no detailed plan. As I've said before, “what will you do” doesn't request that you lay out a plan. Saying what you will care about doesn't tell us anything about what you will *do*. Saying what you will focus on doesn't tell us what you will *do*. I honestly don't see what more I could tell you, without making up examples. I do *not* want to do that, because that will always be contrived and missing the point. You say that you feel you can do better. That's an entirely subjective statement, of course. We're asking what you will *do*, so we can better know what you mean by “do better”. In particular, what you will do. Naturally, that involves speculation about future possibilities. Surely, though, a DPL candidate can be expected to have some degree of foresight as to typical *specific* situations and how they would respond differently from other candidates. That's what is being requested – in my framing of the question, anyway. What more do you want? There is nothing more to say than that. Perhaps that's the most informative answer. Thank you. -- \ “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to | `\persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl | _o__)Sagan | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lin3hhr5@benfinney.id.au
Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes: * Why do you think you need to be elected as a DPL to do what you propose? Given that one response to this didn't really address the question, let me try re-stating it: * What *specific* actions, requiring DPL powers, will you do as DPL? For each of those specific actions, why do you think they need DPL powers? -- \ “Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine | `\ contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time.” | _o__) —Hippocrates | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vcm9il7v@benfinney.id.au
Re: Gergely and Wouter: on the need of becoming a DPL
Please don't send me personal copies of messages that are also going to the mailing list, as I haven't asked for that. Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:05:24AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: * What *specific* actions, requiring DPL powers, will you do as DPL? For each of those specific actions, why do you think they need DPL powers? Point taken about “powers”. You acknowledge that the DPL has authority to do some things that ordinary members can't do, so please read “authority” in its place. This question is based on a number of incorrect assumptions. First, it assumes I have a very specific plan laid out for the next year, with what I will do on each day (or, well at least each month). Not at all. The question isn't asking when you'll do these things; it's not a question of schedules or timetables. The question is getting to the reason why you think people should want you as DPL: what, specifically, do you intend to do with that authority, and why do you think you need that authority to do those specific actions? I have an idea of what to do, but some of the details will have to be mapped out as I go along. In a sense, this *is* a new project. Of course, that's not a problem. But it shouldn't prevent you from addressing the question as asked. I know that there are a number of things that I want to do differently from how Stefano's been doing them. I want to have a different focus. As DPL, I want to try and motivate people to work on Debian. Please tell us what *specific* things you want to do differently, and why those specific actions need DPL authority. As such, if I evaded the question, that's mainly because I think there *isn't* a good answer to that question. That should concern potential voters. If a candidate can't be specific about what they intend to do as DPL, nor why those specific actions need DPL authority, I think voters would be well advised to avoid voting for that candidate. I hope you agree, and can give some more specific answer to address the question. Thanks! -- \“The difference between religions and cults is determined by | `\ how much real estate is owned.” —Frank Zappa | _o__) | Ben Finney pgprWeitage1C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members
Toni Mueller t...@debian.org writes: I am uncomfortable with this wording: * Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values s/which/who/, imho. Are any native speakers around? My opinion as a NSoE matches yours on this point. -- \“Telling pious lies to trusting children is a form of abuse, | `\plain and simple.” —Daniel Dennett, 2010-01-12 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871v8q7g0n@benfinney.id.au
Re: Q for the Candidates: How many users?
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes: Anthony Towns wrote: * popcon.debian.org currently reports 91,523 submissions, * popcon.ubuntu.com currently reports 1,493,440 submissions, and * that this is something of a trick question, […] We're running somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 Debian stable servers. I'm afraid running popcon on them is a non-starter so far due to concerns about information exposure. When this was previously discussed on debian-devel, it became clear that we're far from the only ones in that situation. Right. One possible explanation for such a low popcon result for Debian is that those who are concerned about popcon exposure also want fine control in many other areas, including support for many marginally-popular packages, and so selectively prefer Debian. Those hosts would therefore not show up on either list. Other explanations are possible, of course. -- \ “Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except | `\for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand | _o__) knowledge.” —Erwin Knoll | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874ok7swwa@benfinney.id.au
Re: Question to all Candidates: Heated discussions
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 02:40:32AM +, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: Do you think current frequency/amount of heated discussions is acceptable for the Debian project? I believe no amount of ad-hominem discussion is acceptable. There's a significant difference between ad hominem discussion (which I interpret as meaning “discussion about a person”) versus argumentum ad hominem (the widely-used but sometimes poorly-understood logical fallacy URL:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html). The only case where ad hominem discussion qualifies as the argumentum ad hominem fallacy is when it is used as a red herring; i.e. when the personal details being discussed are irrelevant to the substance of the argument. Could you clarify what you mean by your statement above in light of that difference? -- \ “I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired because I kept | `\ locking the keys in the plane. They caught me on an 80 foot | _o__)stepladder with a coathanger.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney pgpKfEMjGDJsT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but does this really really really need a GR? If it could be arranged, a way to avoid the GR would be to have the ftpmasters publicly express (ideally in this discussion thread) their position in agreement with one of Charles's proposed options. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\ so, Brain, but it's a miracle that this one grew back.” —_Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Convite: Results of the Lenny release GR @ sex 27 de nov de 2009 (debian-vote@lists.debian.org)
Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com writes: Você foi convidado para o seguinte evento. Título: Results of the Lenny release GR I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay! In case anyone is confused: This is *not* an exceedingly delayed announcement. It is copy-and-pasted content from an existing message From 2008. -- \ “It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might | `\ be wrong.” —Chris Torek | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpFhQJq51aPC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes: Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 (GFDL w/o invariant sections is free, 1:1) Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted the DFSG. That's the best use of project policy statements, I think: they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work. And if someone doing the work is not persuaded by this? What if one of the many who do *not* find that GR to be persuasive is in the position to reject a package containing FDL-licensed work, and does so on the basis that their interpretation of the DFSG and FDL mean that the package is not free? By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid. The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going through the GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the decision? -- \ “I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate | `\ revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up | _o__) to him real quick and hand it to him.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: By your arguments earlier in this thread, it seems this person's interpretation, though contradictory with the GR, is equally valid. The GR is, you say, non-binding. So what is the point of going through the GR process if it doesn't bind such a person to the decision? Because people treat them seriously and follow them voluntarily even if they don't personally agree. And if they're not convinced? Either the GR is binding or it's not. You say it's not; but if that's the case, when a person acts in contradiction to such a GR, what basis does anyone else have for telling them to stop? If, on the other hand, the person's actions are prevented on the basis of the GR, what sense is there in saying that the GR is non-binding? It feels to me like you're insisting on adding mechanisms to force poeple to do things into the process that simply aren't necessary historically. No. I'm saying that there *are* such mechanisms, as pointed out earlier. If a GR informs positive action but it's okay to interpret it as “non-binding”, then we don't have a good basis for preventing actions in contradiction to the GR. If, on the other hand, we say that GR *is* binding, then actions that contradict it are harmful and can be stopped on that basis. Does this mean GRs are serious and should be worded carefully? Of course; but I thought we knew that already. I would really rather focus on solving the problems that we actually have, rather than theoretical problems that assume fellow DDs are going to do obviously stupid things. One of the prevalent themes in these discussions is that it isn't even close to universal in the project what is “obviously stupid” and what isn't. That's why we have decision-making systems. -- \ “I was in a bar the other night, hopping from barstool to | `\ barstool, trying to get lucky, but there wasn't any gum under | _o__) any of them.” —Emo Philips | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes: On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote: No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD. This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”. Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with being false for other people? […] If the project thinks [proposals which conflict the foundation documents, but don't say so explicitly] _should_ require 3:1 then I would like that enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't have to resign over it as well, next time this comes up. If that is the case, then of course we also need to decide who makes that decision. you say for the entire project---surely a position statement conflicts with a FD or it doesn't, whole project or no. Absolutely agreed with this. We may not agree on *whether* a given proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, but (unless we want to have the ludicrous notion that the conflict both exists and does not exist) someone needs to decide which is the case in order to determine whether a supermajority requirement applies. -- \ “I like to skate on the other side of the ice.” —Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpNeLLfIV0XM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with being false for other people? Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not, So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents” refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked? or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which similarly we do not. To the extent that we need to take different action depending on whether a proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, is it not true that we need a body with the power to *make decisions* about the truth of statements like “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents”? The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If, on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination, someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions depend on it. -- \ “Holy tintinnabulation, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with being false for other people? Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not, So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked? No. That's an absurd interpretation of what I said. Yet I can't disambiguate it from this: The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If, on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination, someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions depend on it. And who makes that decision has already been explained at *ridiculous* length on this mailing list, so I'll assume you already know how that works. I presume this is referring to the practice of leaving the determination to each individual person acting. Which, in effect, is allowing that the foundation documents have a different meaning for each person and none of them are wrong. Where have I misunderstood you, and how do you resolve this apparent absurdity? -- \“The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. | `\ It's absolutely not.” —Bill Gates, 1995-10-23 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be. Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though. It really shouldn't; as a group we decide whether we're going to uphold the social contract. There's no way to force the group to uphold it. That doesn't mean we can't make the explicit expectation that everyone in the group *will* uphold it, as a condition of being in the group. I had thought that expectation was embodied in the requirement for all new members to declare they will uphold it. -- \ “Software patents provide one more means of controlling access | `\ to information. They are the tool of choice for the internet | _o__) highwayman.” —Anthony Taylor | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring
Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl writes: Eh, I guess I could have been more obvious than prepending that sentence with Fun! to indicate that I was making a joke. But if you'd read on, you'd have seen that I actually completely agree with you […] Maybe I'll go read a dictionary tomorrow and brush up on my English (I have a nice 1700 page Collins Cobuild here; should keep me occupied for a couple of hours). Your English is so good that I thought your interjection of “Fun!” was deliberate sarcasm, with the rest being serious :-) -- \ “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold to the masses | `\over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and | _o__)its speaker a raving lunatic.” —Dresden James | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Bill Allombert bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr writes: I have to disapprove on a proposal whose purpose is essentially to disfranchise developers from their right related to general resolutions. This proposed change disenfranchises no-one; no-one's rights are deprived. It does not discriminate and treats all DDs equally (as does the status quo). General resolutions are a much more democratic and mature processes to handle conflicts than massive flamewars that unfortunately are occasionally seen on our lists. Yes, they're an essential tool. The proposal, AFAICT, does not seek to change that fact. Restricting them is not going to help the project. Increasing the bar for a proposed option to enter the ballot is respectful of the time of all DDs. I think that certainly would help the project, and I think the current proposal would help achieve that. No restriction is proposed on *what* can be proposed for a GR; only that GR proposals must show they meet a higher threshold of support before going to a vote. If a proposal can't even garner seconds from floor(Q) DDs, I think it certainly does help the project to keep such a proposal off the ballot. Secondly, the GR process depends heavily on the possibility of developers to offer amendments and extra options on the ballots. In particular it is vital that middle-ground options get on the ballot. Requiring of them a high number of seconds might bar them from being on the ballot, because they are not preferred options, but compromises. This I find more interesting. I'll reserve opinion on this until I see what counter-arguments are made. To set an example, are you willing to refrain to call for vote this GR until you get at least 30 seconds ? That's a fair question, but AUIU, it is not up to the proposer, having already proposed, to decide when the vote gets called. I am afraid this GR will be inefficient to reach its objective (which I disapprove of): 1) It does not limit the number of GR proposal which will be made, only the number that will be callable for vote. Which, I predict, will weed out those proposals that do not have sufficient support from interested parties to garner a significant vote tally. That seems only a good thing. 2) This will reduce the standard for seconding GR proposals. How? 3) It can be worked around by a set of 25 developers that would just seconds any GR proposal made, even if they plan to vote against. The same could be said for the current system: a hypothetical cabal of merely 5 developers could ensure that every proposal gets through by doing exactly as you say. Yet apparently this has not happened. Why would 25 such developers begin acting that way if 5 have not? -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpX6CC61DQwV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General Resolution. Have we really reached the end of the normal informal discussion process on this issue without resolution? Proposing a formal GR now seems very premature. If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on debian-devel with Sponsorship requirements and copyright files as title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings. For what it's worth, my argument is summarised in Message-ID: 87bprwlp7d@benfinney.id.au URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/03/msg00246.html. I'll underline the point that the discussion is *recent* and *ongoing* on this issue, and many points have yet to be made. It still appears quite feasible that a consensus will be reached *without* invoking any formal procedure. -- \“I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said ‘pet | `\ supplies’. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that | _o__) said ‘compact cars’.” —Steven Wright | Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au pgpZFElBDEJ6y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Project Leader Election 2009: Final call for nominations.
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org writes: How about accepting that he is the gender-neutral pronoun in English? Because that's not true; “he” is a male-gender pronoun. The pronoun “he” is sometimes awkwardly and explicitly defined for gender-neutral use in specific cases, but it's never the case that “he” is by default understood to be gender-neutral. The English gender-neutral singular pronoun for people, if such a pronoun exists in English, is “they”. If someone disagrees, they are welcome to fight the tide and historical usage, but I think they are fooling themselves. -- \ “Reichel's Law: A body on vacation tends to remain on vacation | `\unless acted upon by an outside force.” —Carol Reichel | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * 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. Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. Those questions don't just get resolved by ignoring them. -- \ “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his | `\ enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response to the questions he's raised in this thread. My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been engaging substantively with the questions Robert has raised. However, as that discussion continues, the questions don't seem much closer to resolution. -- \“Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. | `\ Dijkstra | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org writes: And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just stupid. Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's suggestion was a *principle* offered to guide the discussion on good or bad directions of change to the GR drafting process. -- \ “Remember: every member of your ‘target audience’ also owns a | `\ broadcasting station. These ‘targets’ can shoot back.” —Michael | _o__) Rathbun to advertisers, news.admin.net-abuse.email | Ben Finney -- 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
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org writes: So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the options I don't like are better than others, what should I do? You should rank the options in the order you prefer them: by your description, rank “Further Discussion” as 1, one or more other options as 2, some other option(s) as 3, and so on to reflect your preferences. Why is this such a confusing issue? -- \ “Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.” | `\ —Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * 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. (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.) 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. I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote. 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. -- \ “I'm having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I feel like | `\ I've forgotten this before sometime.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * 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. Agreed. I don't see what in my position you're disagreeing with, but I'm likewise no longer interested in this side discussion as I feel it's already resolved a few days ago. We can leave it here. -- \ “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to | `\persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl | _o__)Sagan | Ben Finney -- 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
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options would be more careful about the effects that their options may have, and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable options exist. Absolutely agreed with this sentiment. 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? -- \ “The cost of education is trivial compared to the cost of | `\ ignorance.” —Thomas Jefferson | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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 t...@becket.net writes: On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of any other option than 1 (and perhaps also except 6) can claim that they would've won if the majority requirements were set in a way they consider more appropriate. It is problematic? Are you saying that the 2/3 requirement for changes to the foundation documents should not apply if a majority thinks otherwise? Several points here: A 3:1 supermajority is ¾, not ⅔. Some members do not agree with the actual supermajority requirements as assigned to the options on the ballot, which is not a comment on how those people think we should change foundation documents. Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements should be assigned. I can only conclude that we really do need to see a vote (as proposed earlier) on how the SC and DFSG should affect the Debian project. The outcome of that vote would help me, at least, to understand what the project thinks the relationship is between our actions and the foundation documents. -- \ “I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and | `\ despise the groups they identify with and belong to.” —George | _o__) Carlin, 2007 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New section for firmware.
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le mardi 23 décembre 2008 à 19:02 -0600, Peter Samuelson a écrit : Without weighing in on whether there _is_ a class of software for which users shouldn't have the right to look at and modify source code, this whole phrase run on the host CPU needs to die and be replaced by something more precise. Maybe we could also rely on common sense instead of trying to formalize every bit of everything. If the discussion surrounding the freedom of binary blobs has shown anything, surely it's shown that within the Debian project there are mutually incompatible views on this topic, each of which is held to be “common sense” by those who hold them. At least part of the reason why these incompatible differences persist between people who have mutually agreed to the SC and DFSG, I would argue, is that we have relied on so-called “common sense” interpretations that turn out, on inspection, to be rather less common than was believed. -- \ “Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.” | `\ —Niels Bohr | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Freedom and pragmatism (was: I hereby resign as secretary)
Noah Meyerhans no...@debian.org writes: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:04:55PM +, Ian Lynagh wrote: I believe that part of the problem is that we are not all here to create a free operating system. I have the impression that some developers merely wish to create an operating system, or perhaps a 'free-enough-for-me' operating system. OTOH, it seems to me that there are people with varying degrees of pragmatism. That implies a (lamentably common) false dichotomy. Free software goals *are* pragmatic goals. They directly affect how we interact with the digital information that infuses our lives; essential freedom in that sphere is a highly pragmatic goal. There may be reasons that compel us to reduce our freedom, and they may also be described as “pragmatic”. But it's wrong to imply that those who strive for freedom don't do so for very pragmatic reasons. -- \“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used | `\ when we created them.” —Albert Einstein | _o__) | Ben Finney -- 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 d...@net.com.org.es writes: I got what you mean: the poll does not give an option for people who were discontent, *not with the direction in which the tags were applied (leave firmware in Lenny), but with the tags being applied for these issues without consultation*. For what it's worth, that was my original concern when I raised the issue on -devel: that a set of decisions, deemed important enough multiple times in the past to need a GR to pass a limited-duration override of the social contract, was this time being made without first seeking even a general discussion. Thank you for re-making this distinction, which does seem to have been partially lost in the intervening time. -- \ “Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's | _o__) hard to avoid second-hand smoke.” —Michael Tiemann | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Resolving the controversy
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 10:25 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : Personal attacks (to call my statements “lies” is to assert that I'm knowingly stating falsehood) are not welcome. This is not a personal attack. You are spreading lies That is exactly the personal attack that I refer to. Please stop asserting that I'm deliberately spreading falsehoods. If you think what I say is false, I welcome argument to arrive at the truth; but it is a personal attack to say that I deliberately spread statements I know to be false, and personal attacks are not welcome here. implying no one is working on these bugs I never intended to give that impression. Clearly people are working on fixing DFSG violations; earlier parts of this discussion have mentioned them several times. My argument is regarding the resolution to alter the interpretation of the DFSG so that some of these bugs would no longer be recognised as DFSG violations. while YOU are the one discouraging people to work on them. I hereby give my full endorsement and to anyone working to resolve DFSG violations in Debian, now or at any time. If anything I've said has discouraged people from doing such work, I explicitly enourage that work's continuance. With that out of the way, I hope we can return to discussion about the resolution on interpreting the social contract and DFSG. -- \ “I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much | `\ as a week sometimes to make it up.” —Mark Twain, _The Innocents | _o__) Abroad_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: […] we will […] deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, as long as we are legally allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG. (http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007) This says that the *license* must comply with the DFSG. It specifically does *not* say that the *firmware* complies with the DFSG, allowing us to ship firmware in main for which source code was unavailable if it otherwise complied with the DFSG. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that availability of the source form of a work is not a necessary criterion to describe a work as “distributed upstream under a license that complies with the DFSG”. Is that a fair phrasing of the assertion? -- \“It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” | `\ —David Hume | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Jacob Hallén [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first paragraph of the SC is a lie! I wasn't lying when I agreed to that. It's a promise, a measure to stive for. I will concede that we're currently not meeting that promise, but that doesn't make it a lie. Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been. Indeed. Those instances where it's not free are bugs to be fixed. 1. The SC states that the goals of Debian is to promote the general use if free software and that whenever a decision is made, the choice that maximses the use and promulgation of free software will be taken. Does it? I think it states rather that the choice that maximises conformance with the promises in the social contract will be taken. This implies that non-free software (firmware, documentation) may at times be part of the Debian offering, because the alternatives would harm the spread of free software. I don't think “the spread of free software” is a concern in the social contract. 2. The SC states that the goals of Debian is to produce a totally free software distribution. This implies that practicality for users is not a concern and that Debian is produced for a select few, who get to live in full freedom. What utter tosh. You may perceive that, but it's nowhere to be found in the document. -- \“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in | `\ choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” —John | _o__)Kenneth Galbraith, 1962-03-02 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jacob Hallén [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been. Indeed. Those instances where it's not free are bugs to be fixed. So, you actually wanna do something to fix those bugs or wanna simply talk about them? That's a false dichotomy. The talk in this context is regarding whether they are DFSG violations at all. I see too many emails sent and too few RC bugs fixed. If you (like others) would really work for Debian instead of only filling lists.d.o archives, Debian would be a better distribution, but maybe it's not in your interest. Whereas I don't think it's acceptable to allow false statements or poor argument to go unchallenged, especially when discussing a vote on a resolution that impacts the foundation documents of the project. Note that we can both have what we are asking for: discussing a general resolution does not preclude working to improve Debian. -- \ “What you have become is the price you paid to get what you | `\ used to want.” —Mignon McLaughlin | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 13:41, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sandro Tosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 10:34, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jacob Hallén [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Debian is not 100% free software, and it never has been. Indeed. Those instances where it's not free are bugs to be fixed. So, you actually wanna do something to fix those bugs or wanna simply talk about them? That's a false dichotomy. The talk in this context is regarding whether they are DFSG violations at all. Really? so can you please show us what you've done to fix them? You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. That's what is being discussed: whether certain freedoms are or are not DFSG violations (and therefore bugs). Demanding credentials from me personally doesn't seem to be addressing the point. You're discussing docs for a project you're NOT part of Does that change whether what I say is true or false? As it happens I am a part of the Debian project. But that shouldn't matter, and I'll ask you to kindly stop attacking people instead of arguments. and you're proposing resolutions/suggestions you can NOT even vote for or against; I can't see the point. The point is to encourage rational discussion of fact and principle, and discourage false arguments, about a resolution to the foundational documents of the project. Documents whose promise I very much want upheld by all project members, whether they can vote or not. If all you're interested in doing is demanding my credentials and painting me as an outsider, I don't think this contributes to the discussion at all. -- \ “Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; | `\those in philosophy only ridiculous.” —David Hume, _A Treatise | _o__) of Human Nature_, 1739 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. That's what is being discussed: whether certain freedoms are or are not DFSG violations (and therefore bugs). Poorly phrased. “… whether certain restrictions on freedom are or are not DFSG violations” is what I meant. -- \ Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are | `\fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. —“Lord” George | _o__)Gordon Noel Byron | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 à 00:09 +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : You seem to have missed what I said: In order to have *anyone* fix them, they need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations. Would you please stop your lies Personal attacks (to call my statements “lies” is to assert that I'm knowingly stating falsehood) are not welcome. Since you accuse me of knowingly telling falsehood, but don't indicate what you think is false, I can only guess what it might be. Perhaps you're implying that bugs can be fixed without necessarily being acknowledged DFSG violations. My point might be clearer, then, as “In order to have anyone fix bugs as DFSG violations, they first need to be acknowledged as DFSG violations”. If you think I've spoken falsely some other way, please help me by explaining what you think is false, and how. Happily the Debian kernel maintainers haven’t been waiting for you to fix such bugs. Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. I'm arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that DFSG violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as such. -- \ “As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we | `\ should be glad to serve others by any invention of ours; and | _o__) this we should do freely and generously.” —Benjamin Franklin | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed, and I've no wish to impede anyone in efforts to fix bugs. I'm arguing for interpretation of the social contract such that DFSG violations are bugs by definition, so they can be fixed as such. The DFSG doesn't define bugs. It defines release-critical bugs. Bugs that are not release-critical are still occasionally fixed. :) Yes, I agree. I don't know what else you expect; have I given reason to make you think I'd disagree with that statement? -- \ “A child of five could understand this. Fetch me a child of | `\ five.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolving the controversy
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because you've repeatedly said in this thread that one of your motives in discussing this is to ensure that the DFSG declares this a bug so that it will be fixed. I would say not “… so that it will be fixed”, but rather “… so that it's easier to recognise that such restrictions are bugs”. In principle bugs can sometimes be fixed even if they are not explicitly recognised as such; but hopefully I don't need to argue the strong inverse correlation between being unaware of (or failing to recognise the severity of) a bug, with that bug ever being resolved. This was also the reason for the earlier response that you blew up at. I'm trying to explain what the other poster was getting at, since you apparently completely missed it. I'm starting to lose track of the referents you use (it's not clear which post you're referring to, and which other poster, since I don't recall blowing up at any response in this discussion), but I hope we're closer to agreement here now. -- \ “I watched the Indy 500, and I was thinking that if they left | `\ earlier they wouldn't have to go so fast.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says, since you're playing word substitution games with the text. An accusation that could easily be made from many contradictory positions. The DFSG is not unambiguous in its wording, which of course leads to these conflicting interpretations, and leads us to call General Resolutions in some cases. Fortunately, in the case of programmatic works and DFSG §2, the Debian project has *already* voted on the interperatation and decided URL:http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 that the requirement for source code applies to all programmatic works in Debian: … the Debian Project: Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. There are doubtless many other hairs to split in the DFSG, but that one, at least, has been resolved. Maybe /you've/ promised not to distribute any works without source code in Debian. The Debian project has done no such thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
[apologies for the poorly edited previous post, it was sent accidentally.] Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It appears what you don't understand is what the DFSG actually says, since you're playing word substitution games with the text. An accusation that could easily be made from many contradictory positions. The DFSG is not unambiguous in its wording, which of course leads to these conflicting interpretations, and leads us to call General Resolutions in some cases. Fortunately, in the case of programmatic works and DFSG §2, the Debian project has *already* voted on the interperatation and decided URL:http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 that the requirement for source code applies to all programmatic works in Debian: … the Debian Project: Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. There are doubtless many other hairs to split in the DFSG, but that one, at least, has been resolved. Maybe /you've/ promised not to distribute any works without source code in Debian. The Debian project has done no such thing. Insofar as we're talking about programmatic works, and insofar as the Debian project has resolved the above interpretation of source code requirement, then yes, the Debian project *has* promised to do that. -- \ “If I had known what it would be like to have it all... I might | `\ have been willing to settle for less.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily | _o__) Tomlin | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fortunately, in the case of programmatic works and DFSG §2, the Debian project has *already* voted on the interperatation and decided URL:http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004 that the requirement for source code applies to all programmatic works in Debian: Wrong, actually. Thanks to Charles Plessy for pointing out that I'd misread that page; the resolution was in fact for “Further Discussion”. -- \ “What I have to do is see, at any rate, that I do not lend | `\ myself to the wrong which I condemn.” —Henry Thoreau, _Civil | _o__)Disobedience_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:00:02AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have promised that works without source code will not be distributed in Debian. We? That's what I wrote, yes. I, like every other Debian Developer and Debian Maintainer (unless I misunderstand the process of gaining those responsibilities?), have explicitly declared my understanding of, adherence to, and support of that promise. -- \ “In general my children refuse to eat anything that hasn't | `\ danced on television.” —Erma Bombeck | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-17 19:31]: It is my opinion that releasing lenny with known DFSG violations is a violation of the Social Contract, on the part of the project as a whole, regardless of which individuals are making the decisions. Did you ever read SC #4? It's a violation of the SC to not provide our users with a usable system. The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are not yet operable with Debian, but that doesn't mean Debian stops being usable on the myriad other devices already supported. Are you advocating an interpretation that SC §4 is only satisfied by providing an operating system that is usable with every single device that exists at a given point in time? -- \“Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, | `\nations and ages it is the rule.” —Friedrich Nietzsche | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Johannes Wiedersich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney wrote: The Debian system we provide is usable. There may be devices which are not yet operable with Debian, Which wireless card is supported by debian without any sourceless firmware, either loaded by the kernel or present on the chip? Whether loaded by the kernel or present on the chip, we have promised that works without source code will not be distributed in Debian. Would you imply that wireless networking should never be usable by debian users, if it turns out that publication of sourcecode is illegal in countries like the US or the EU? Debian users can get whatever non-free stuff they feel motivated to get from the same type of places they've always been available: direct from the vendor, or from some other party that is not breaking a promise by distributing it to them. Even, according to our social contract, from the ‘non-free’ collection. -- \ “Homer, where are your clothes?” “Uh... dunno.” “You mean Mom | `\dresses you every day?!” “I guess; or one of her friends.” | _o__)—Lisa Homer, _The Simpsons_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Differing standards of freedom for different bitstreams (was: call for seconds: on firmware)
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to different standards of freedom for its recipients. The properties “not code that is run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to be irrelevant to the argument. Can you re-write this so it's clear why this particular class of bitstream should not be held to the same freedom standards as everything else in Debian? I've seen quite a number of seconds for Peter Palfrader's proposal, yet have not seen an answer to my question above. If this proposal passes, it seems to me that the result is the establishment of a contradiction between: | a) firmware in Debian does not have to come with source. While we do | prefer firmware that comes with source and documentation we will not | require it, | b) we however do require all other freedoms that the DFSG mandate from | components of our operating system, […] versus SC §1: 1. Debian will remain 100% free […] We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG] […] We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. Those two cannot, by my reading, be simultaneously true. Surely some significant number of those who second the proposal must have a rational way to reconcile “Debian will remain 100% free” with the differing standards of freedom proposed by Peter? -- \ “Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at | `\ me: I've worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme | _o__) poverty.” —Groucho Marx | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Defining free, and the DFSG's terminological shortcomings (was: call for seconds: on firmware)
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:20:05PM +, Ben Finney wrote: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The SC speaks about software, and doesn't define it. The statement that Manoj refers to, [SC §1], does *not* speak about software. […] There is no need to define “software” for this promise to be understood. It explicitly promises that “the Debian system and all its components will be free”. This bit doesn't require the so called source of the work to exist within Debian explicitly. It asks for any component in Debian to meet the DFSG. Okay. So, at least, we agree that the promise that Debian will remain 100% free does not depend on the term “software”. In turn however, the DFSG requires that in their §2. The DFSG use a mix of component, software, program words, which makes them a mess in that regard. That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the DFSG, so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess of terms. I would agree that could be a good motivation in principle. -- \“Human reason is snatching everything to itself, leaving | `\ nothing for faith.” —Saint Bernard, 1090–1153 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Defining free, and the DFSG's terminological shortcomings
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:15:10PM +, Ben Finney wrote: That seems to be an argument for proposing a re-wording of the DFSG, so that freedoms are defined without referring to that mess of terms. I would agree that could be a good motivation in principle. Yes, I believe the DFSG are clumsy when it comes to its terms. Component is clear. Firmwares are part of Debian components for sure, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But I'm honnestly not sure what programs or software mean, and in §2 that's the terms in use, and that's the sole § causing issues with them. We have had quite a few rounds of GRs to say that documentations, images, documentation, fonts... are softwares I think that's a mischaracterisation of those GRs. They're not “to say that foo is software”, but rather “to determine whether foo should be exempt from the freedoms that we promise to apply to all of Debian”. Again, as earlier in this thread, I don't see such arguments necessarily requiring a definition of “software”; but, as you say, the current wording of the DFSG makes this confusion much more likely. we could continue such rounds, or make the DFSG clearer. I would be more on the latter side. Agreed, I would very much like the DFSG to be clearer as to what freedoms it defines for works in Debian. Is now a good time to propose such a GR? On the positive side, it could bring clarity to the ongoing discussions about what freedoms apply to works in Lenny; on the negative side, it could further delay the resolutions that seem to more directly impact the status of Lenny. -- \ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the | `\ best.” —Oscar Wilde | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: call for seconds: on firmware
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm hereby proposing the following general resolution: | Firmware is data such as microcode or lookup tables that is loaded | into hardware components in order to make the component function | properly. It is not code that is run on the host CPU. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as so-called | blobs, with no source or further documentation that lets us learn | how it works or interacts with the hardware in question. By | excluding such firmware from Debian we exclude users that require | such devices from installing our operating system, or make it | unnecessarily hard for them. | | Therefore […] This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to different standards of freedom for its recipients. The properties “not code that is run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to be irrelevant to the argument. Can you re-write this so it's clear why this particular class of bitstream should not be held to the same freedom standards as everything else in Debian? -- \“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make | `\you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” —Ralph | _o__)Waldo Emerson | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: on firmware (possible proposal)
Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm considering formally proposing this GR (option): | Firmware is data that is uploaded to hardware components, not | designed to be run on the host CPU. Often this firmware is already | required at install time in order to use network or storage | devices. | | Unfortunately such firmware often is distributed as BLOBs, with no | source or further documentation that lets us learn how it works or | interacts with the hardware in question. By excluding such | firmware from Debian we exclude users that require such devices | from installing our operating system, or make it unnecessarily | hard for them. | | Therefore […] This gives no argument for why such bitstreams should be held to different standards of freedom for its recipients. The property “not designed to be run on the host CPU” is mentioned, but seems to be irrelevant to the argument. Can you re-write this so it's clear why this particular class of bitstream should not be held to the same freedom standards as everything else in Debian? -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.” | _o__) —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ???lenny-ignore????
William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware at time of release. That's news to me. Where is such a dedication required? Is it some special reading of the vague “our users” commitment, or do you get this dedication from all Debian contributors some other way? Does that dedication somehow override every DD's explicit commitment to ensuring Debian is 100% DFSG-free in the Social Contract? -- \ “Two paradoxes are better than one; they may even suggest a | `\ solution.” —Edward Teller | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The meta-license of the GPL is part of the text of the GPL. The DFSG doesn't say: only part of the GPL is considered free. It says that the GPL, as a whole, including the meta-license, is considered free. The context of that statement is the GPL as a license, not as a work. The license, applied to another work, is free. The GPL as a work, however, is *not* free, since the license on that work does not grant the requisite freedoms. Surely there's no disagreement on this? The only sensible conclusion of this is that the Social Contract and DFSG do not require meta-licenses to fulfil the same requirements as those required for software licenses. (Careful reading will reveal that they consider licenses to be a different class of entity than software, as I wrote in my previous post.) The requested GR proposed to say something along these lines. However, it already follows from the current wording As discussed, I don't think it does follow; it deserves an explicit mention. As far as the GR request goes, I think it has been shown quite strongly that it is not needed. I believe I've rebutted many of these attempts to dismiss the need for this, and feel all the more strongly that the change is needed. -- \ I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. -- Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 12:37:16PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract. Sure, they are technically being distributed, but not as something the social contract cares about. (Pardon the personification.) Then we come again to the point of this discussion. The Social Contract makes a promise we are not keeping. You say it's not ... something the social contract cares about. That's not at all clear from reading it -- the social contract makes a straightforward promise, which has no exception for this, yet we're acting as though such an exception were there. Only by reading a thread like this, or some other discussion which has no obvious connection from the Social Contract, can newcomers learn this exception under which we act. That's what the proposed GR is seeking to rectify. -- \ I thought I'd begin by reading a poem by Shakespeare, but then | `\I thought 'Why should I? He never reads any of mine.' -- | _o__) Spike Milligan | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:48:51AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: There's a difference between idealism and lying about adhering to one's ideals. Yeah, and we're not lying about adhering to our ideals simply by distributing the obligatory license data. If we weren't doing that, we'd have no product of our ideals because we couldn't distribute it. That's a false dichotomy. It ignores the option to tell the truth: i.e., to make our promise match our behaviour, if we feel that behaviour is right. -- \ I like to fill my bathtub up with water, then turn the shower | `\on and pretend I'm in a submarine that's been hit. -- Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, consider DFSG §10: The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. Then recall that the meta-license of the GPL permits no modification (relaxed by FSF policy to be permitted when the preamble is removed and the license is renamed and all references to its original name are removed [0]). Why would the DFSG need an exception or clarification when it already says that such a license is ok? Because the meta-license of the GPL is *not* free, as you pointed out. The licenses are free, because they grant the right freedoms for a work when applied to that work. The license texts are not free, because they do not have those same freedoms. -- \There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though | `\ nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is. -- | _o__) Albert Einstein | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally, I don't see distributing non-modifiable license texts to be violating the social contract. I'm curious to know how you reconcile Social Contract §1 and DFSG §3, and the fact that we distribute non-modifiable texts in Debian. -- \ Yesterday I saw a subliminal advertising executive for just a | `\second. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, the social contract says that the Debian system and all of its components will be fully free; but for all practical intents and purposes (heh), the accompanying license texts are as much a component of the system as is the media the system is distributed on. I don't see the relevance of this. If you're referring to the GPL-specific exception for source code (that components of the target system don't need to be distributed with source), that doesn't seem to be relevant at all: this is about the license terms for a text, not whether source code must be distributed. Yes, you can't do without it, but you also can't start obsessing on it because the matter can soon get absurd after that. (There is no free hardware to run it on, oh my!) When hardware is something distributable by the Debian project as part of Debian, then this might be relevant; it isn't an issue with current technology. License texts *are* distributed by Debian, now, under terms that are non-free. This behaviour doesn't match the Social Contract. Lawyers would likely ask us - what would be the legal purpose of addressing this concern? Why would lawyers ask us that, and why are their questions about the Social Contract germane here? It's not a legally-binding document. Trying to clarify the social contract by elaborating on peripheral things that aren't immediately obvious, is basically nitpicking, and it shouldn't be done. I would think thazt *only* things which are immediately obvious are exempt from the need for clarification. Anything else needs to at least be considered on its merits, and not dismissed because it's not immediately obvious. Also, nobody cares for statements that can be normalized to 'you can do all this, except that, that, that, and that', and those should also be avoided if we want readers to take the spirit of the document seriously. I don't see how that's at all true. Contrariwise, I would hope you agree that a document that says we will always do this, and never do that, but which is routinely violated in practice, is one that readers will not take seriously. -- \ Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done | `\ for me? -- Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney writes (Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue): [The status quo] doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian against the Social Contract. This concern DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. It needs to be IGNORED. You seem to be saying that a violation of the social contract should be ignored. My response to that is that where there is a violation, the social contract and actual practice are out of sync, and one or the other (or both) needs to be changed. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify. -- \ Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why | `\ is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has | _o__)evolved to do. -- Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Nathanael Nerode wrote: How about: There is a special exception for the texts of the licenses under which works in Debian are distributed; It's not just enough for that; it has to be a license specifically being used as a license under which a work in Debian is being distributed. [IE, in debian/copyright or specifically included by reference from there.] For example, a second copy of the GPL in a package under the GPL would not be acceptable, nor would a copy of the GPL in a package not under the GPL. I presume the distinction you're making there is between license texts that are already distributed in /usr/share/common-licenses/ and license texts that aren't. Distributing a license text that already exists in /usr/share/common-licenses/ may (I can't recall) be against the Policy; but why is it something we'd want to prevent on Social Contract grounds? If that's not what you're arguing, please explain. -- \ Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they | `\ believe me? -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Request for GR: clarifying the license text licensing / freeness issue
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I disagree with this position. See Fabian Fagerholm's explanation. For a strong copyleft licence like the GPL it's particularly troublesome if people go around making minor edits: all of that code is licence-incompatible with all unedited-GPL code. So the FSF have worked to prevent that by using the copyright on their licence text and I don't think that's unreasonable. I can see that preventing license proliferation (especially closely-similar but incompatible licenses) is a motivation for discouraging changes to the license text. The status quo is quite fine and should be left as it is. This doesn't address the concern that motivated this discussion: that the license texts which have restrictions on modification are non-free works by the DFSG, yet are being distributed in Debian against the Social Contract. -- \ Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything | `\ that's even remotely true! -- Homer, _The Simpsons_ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: free, freer, freest
Bruce Sass wrote: What is the FSF, what does the FSF do that GNU can not, and why. GNU is a project to create a free-software implementation of Unix. The FSF is an organisation set up to run the project. Please see the GNU pages for more. http://www.gnu.org/ Is Debian a front for GNU, or an independent entity. Debian is a distribution of GNU software, the Linux kernel, and other software that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines. GNU's idea of free appears quite different: subject to the will of GNU; confined to GNU's notion of free; obligated to follow GNU philosophy. The GNU definition of free software can be read on their web site. The GNU project does not encompass all free software, and not all free software has been released under the GNU GPL. wouldn't the average reasonable person assume that the free in free software carries the same meaning as the word free does when used in other contexts. GNU may champion free software, but it does not champion free, the 17,000+ byte General Public License makes that clear. The GNU GPL is, to paraphrase RMS, only meant to solve some of the world's problems, not all of them. What do you expect? That a *software* license will guarantee all your human freedoms? My biggest worry is that Debian will become too GNUish I don't understand the term GNUish. The DFSG have not changed for quite a while and there is no proposal in place to change them now. What is it you fear will happen? Why doesn't GNU set up their own front-end to Debian, one that only allows access to what GNU considers to be free? Possibly because, as another poster said, Debian is doing quite well in separating between free and non-free. In fact, as another pointed out, it is the *only* distribution that currently makes the distinction clear. The current proposal is intented (I believe) to clarify the distinction further. Users and developers would then be able to make a choice between a free Debian style Linux/HURD/whatever distribution, and the GNU window into the same distribution. Explain your understanding of free Debian style as opposed to the GNU window into a distribution. I don't see anything in the current proposal, or RMS's comments, that advocates a GNU-only approach to anything. This suggestion could result in Debian becoming the freest software distribution around, rather than a second-rate distribution because it is missing currently important pieces like Netscape and ssh. You seem to suggest that the lack of *non-free* packages like Netscape Communicator and SSH is what is keeping Debian from being the freest software distribution around. That is a patent contradiction, so either I don't get what you're saying, or you're confused. -- Regards, Ben Finney, System Administrator PrintSoft Pty Ltd
